Allowed¶39

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Thr. Its Headmistress v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Jan 2026WP/13220/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Examination centre debarment; permanent debarment of schools/junior colleges as board examination centres; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune Divisional Board; copying case and malpractice in 10th/12th standard (SSC/HSC) board examinations, Feb/March 2025; Deputy Education Officer malpractice findings; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; writ petitions, Kolhapur circuit bench; quashing of debarment orders and restoration of examination centre numbers; individual candidate malpractice versus institutional liability.

What did the court decide?

Impugned debarment orders dated 11 December 2025 quashed and set aside; examination centre numbers of the petitioner institutions restored; no order as to costs. ¶39

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Thr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned debarment orders dated 11 December 2025 quashed and set aside; examination centre numbers of the petitioner institutions restored; no order as to costs.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders permanently debarring the petitioners' educational institutions from being allotted as centres for conducting the 10th and 12th standard examinations can be sustained, where the institutional authorities were not involved in the malpractice and only one or two candidates per institution were found involved.

¶22

Court's answer

It is not the case of the authorities that the petitioner institutions themselves were involved in malpractice; only a few students were involved, and even on the Board's own showing the authorities of the educational institutions were not implicated.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Since the involvement in malpractice was confined to individual candidates (and not the institutions or their authorities), the action of permanently debarring the petitioners' institutions from allotment as examination centres cannot be sustained.

¶38

Key takeaways

The impugned debarment orders are accordingly quashed and set aside; the writ petitions stand allowed and, consequently, the petitioners' examination centre numbers are restored, with no order as to costs.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Circuit Bench (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) - Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.; common order dated March 11, 2026 in Writ Petition Nos. 496 of 2026, 626 of 2026 and 13220 of 2025 (Art. 226). Impugned orders dated 11 December 2025 of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune Divisional Board permanently debarred the petitioner institutions as centres for the 10th and 12th standard examinations on the footing of copying/malpractice cases in the Feb/March 2025 examinations, in which only two candidates (and, in each of the other two institutions, one candidate) were found involved; the institutional authorities were not implicated. Holding that permanent debarment could not be sustained where the involvement was confined to a few students, the Court quashed the orders, allowed the writ petitions and restored the examination centre numbers; no order as to costs.

¶1

3-WP-496-2026

¶2

This order is corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minutes order dated 07/04/2026.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 2026 Shree Balkrishna Shikshan Sanshta Nandeshwar ...Petitioners Thr Sec And Anr Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr Department Of Education And Others ...Respondent With

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 626 OF 2026

¶6

Shri Chandrashekhar Vidyalay And Narayankaka Aagashe Junior College Shripur Versus

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School, Education And Sport Department, ...Respondent With

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 13220 OF 2025

¶10

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, ...Petitioner Tembhurni Thr. Its Headmistress Versus State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors ...Respondents

¶11

Mr. Shrikrishna Ganbawale with Mr. Hitesh G. Raninga, Advocate for the petitioner in WP/496/2026.

¶12

Mr. Harishchandra Kamble a/w. Mr. Dinesh Sonarlikar, Advocate for petitioner in WP/13220/2025.

¶13

Dr. Shrikant Madhav Kulkarni a/w. Adv. Amit Nehatrao, Advocate for petitioner in WP/626/2026.

1 of 4

adn

3-WP-496-2026

Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for respondents-State in WP/496/2026 Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for respondents-State in WP/626/2026 Mr. A. A. Naik, AGP for respondents-State in WP/13220/2025. Mr. S. B. Khamkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶18

Coram : Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ. Date : March 11, 2026.

¶19

P. C. :

¶20

1. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners, the learned AGP for the Respondent-State and the learned Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶21

2. As a common issue is involved in all these Writ Petitions, they are taken up for hearing together.

¶22

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders in these Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the respective educational institutions have been permanently debarred from being allotted as centres for conducting the 10ᵗʰ and 12ᵗʰ standard examinations respectively. The details of the impugned orders and other particulars are set out in tabular form as follows:

¶23

Sr.	Writ Petition Numbers	Name of Petitioners’ Institution	Date of Impugned Order
1	496 of 2026	Shree Balkrishna Shikshan Sanshta Nandeshwar	11^thDecember 2025
2	626 of 2026	Shri Chandrashekhar Vidyalay And Narayankaka Aagashe Junior College Shripur	11^thDecember 2025
3	13220 of 2025	Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni	11^thDecember 2025

2 of 4

adn

3-WP-496-2026

4. It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that in similar circumstances this Court, by a common order dated 28ᵗʰ January 2026 passed in Writ Petition No.13066 of 2025 along with Writ Petition No.13224 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.13223 of 2025, has set aside the impugned orders of similar nature.

¶28

5. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved in these Writ Petitions, it is relevant to refer to paragraph No.7 of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 – Minakshi Raut, Divisional Secretary of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune Divisional Board in Writ Petition No. 496 of 2026. Paragraph 7 of the said affidavit reads as under :-

¶29

“7.I say that admittedly the centre was involved in copying case in the 12^th board exam of the year Feb/March 2025. In fact the deputy education officer found that candidates were involved in malpractice. The respondent no.2 states that there are 02 copying case with the centre and hence the impugned letter was issued on 11^th December 2025 thereby debarring the petitioner as an examination centre.”

¶30

6. Similar contentions are raised in the affidavits filed in the other

¶31

Writ Petitions. Thus, paragraph No.7 of the affidavit in reply filed in Writ Petition No.496 of 2026 clearly shows that as far as the 12ᵗʰ Board examination of February–March 2025 is concerned, the Deputy Education Officer found that 2 candidates were involved in malpractice. In fact, in other two writ petitions, only one candidate in each of the institution was

3 of 4

adn

3-WP-496-2026

found to be involved in the malpractice.

¶36

7. What is relevant to note is that in the educational institutions of

¶37

the petitioners only two candidates / one candidate, as the case may be, were found involved in the malpractice. Even as per the case of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune Divisional Board, the authorities of the educational institutions were not involved in the malpractice.

¶38

8. Although Mr. Khamkar, learned Advocate for respondent No.2, has strongly opposed the grant of any relief, it is not the case of the authorities that those respective educational institutions were involved in malpractice and it is only a few students who were involved in malpractice. Therefore, the action of permanently debarring the petitioners’ institutions from allotment as centres for conducting the 10ᵗʰ and 12 standard examinations cannot be sustained.ᵗʰ

¶39

9. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The Writ Petitions stand allowed in the above terms. Consequently, the examination centre numbers of the petitioners are restored. No order as

¶40

to costs.

¶41

[Pravin S. Patil, J.]

¶42

[Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]

¶43

4 of 4

¶44

adn

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Thr. Its Headmistress v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Thr. Its Headmistress v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Thr. Its Headmistress vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tembhurni Thr. Its Headmistress vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

M/S N.R. Chavan and Groups Thr. Narayan Ramu Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Ashwini Ajay Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Thr Secretary and Ors.

Shubhamraje Kailas Satpute vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Other Backward Classes Welfare Dept.

Shila Somaji Kolekar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.