Kai S. M. B. Deshmukh Prashala and Junior College Kamti Bu. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶1

152-WP-13066-2025.doc

¶2

Shailaja

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13066 OF 2025

¶6

Vijaysinh Mohite Patil Junior College ] Kondi through Principal Sushma w/o ] Ganesh Neel ] Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another ] Respondents

¶7

a/w

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.13224 OF 2025

¶9

Dnayandeep Junior College, Nandore ] through Its Principal Pradeep s/o ] Ajinath Mali ] Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another ] Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.13223 OF 2025 Kai S.M.B. Deshmukh Prashala ] and Junior College Kamti Budruk ] Through Its Principal Dadasaheb ] Mahadeo Waghmare ] Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another ] Respondents …..

¶10

Mr. D.B. Pokale, for Petitioners.

¶11

Ms. T.J. Kapre, A.G.P, for Respondent No.1 – State in Writ Petition No.13066 of 2025.

¶12

Mr. V.M. Mali, A.G.P, for Respondent No.1 – State in Writ Petition No.13224 of 2025.

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

SHAILAJASHRIKANT Digitally signed by SHAILAJASHRIKANT HALKUDEDate: 2026.01.29 11:14:00 HALKUDE +0530

¶15

152-WP-13066-2025.doc

¶16

Mr. A.P. Vanarase, A.G.P, for Respondent No.1 – State in Writ Petition No.13223 of 2025.

¶17

Mr. Santosh Khamkar, for Respondent No.2 – The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune.

¶18

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

¶19

DATE : 28^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶20

ORAL ORDER: [PER AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]:

¶21

Heard Mr. Pokale, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.Ps’, for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Khamkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 - The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune.

¶22

The common objection raised in all three petitions is that the examination centres of the petitioner - schools designated for conducting the H.S.C. examination have been cancelled by Respondent No.2 viz; The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune, on the ground that instances of examination malpractice were noticed at the said centres.”

¶23

Mr. Khamkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has placed on

¶24

record an affidavit and submits that the written H.S.C. examination is to

¶25

2 of 4

¶26

152-WP-13066-2025.doc

¶27

commence from 10th February, 2026. Learned Counsel would submit that pursuant to cancellation of examination centres of the petitioners, respondent No.2-Authorities have even allotted examination centres to all the students of those three schools and alternate arrangement has been properly made. He would submit that accordingly alternate examination centres have also been mentioned in the hall tickets which were long back issued to the students. He would submit that, in these circumstances, any change in the examination centres, at this juncture, would hamper the educational careers of the students, and therefore no directions be issued for changing the examination centres at this stage.

¶28

Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record order of this Court (Principal Seat) passed in Writ Petition No.17576 of 2025 on 20^th January, 2026 wherein in the identical set of facts, this Court allowed the petition partly and restored the examination centers of the petitioner therein for further examinations.

¶29

Mr. Pokale, learned Counsel, submits that the alleged instances of malpractice at the petitioners’ schools were not at the instance of any staff member of the schools, and Respondent No. 2–Authority does not even allege that any staff of the School Management was involved in copying

¶30

3 of 4

¶31

152-WP-13066-2025.doc

¶32

malpractice. He would submit that even if certain instances have been brought to light, the same pertain only to an individual student, and on that basis, the examination centres of the petitioners ought not to be cancelled.

¶33

Mr. Khamkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has fairly agreed that these are not cases in which the School Management or staff of the petitioners were involved in any malpractice in the examinations, and he would agree that the cases pertain solely to individual students.

¶34

In view of the foregoing, we find that the cancellation of the examination centres of the petitioners cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the petitions are partly allowed, with a direction to restore the examination centres of the petitioners for future examinations, excluding the upcoming H.S.C. examination; that is, after the conclusion of the H.S.C. examinations for the academic year 2025-2026.

¶35

The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as

¶36

to costs.

¶37

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]

¶38

[ R.G. AVACHAT J.]

¶39

4 of 4

Kai S. M. B. Deshmukh Prashala and Junior College Kamti Bu. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kai S. M. B. Deshmukh Prashala and Junior College Kamti Bu. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijaysinh Mohite Patil Junior College Thr. Principal Sushma W/O Ganesh Neel vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary and Anr.

Dnayandeep Junior College, Nandore Thr. Principal vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary and Anr.

Vikas Vidyalaya and Junior College Thr Its Principal vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abc Thr. Father Xyz vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Public Health and Family Welfare and Anr.

Pradeep Shivaji Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Maruti Shivputra Dhab vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.