Allowed¶32

Late Radhatai Musale Junior College Thr Its Principal Panjab Tukaram Gavhanekar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026WP/814/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HSC examination centre cancellation; copying/malpractice March 2025 HSC exam; Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board; junior colleges; Board regulations on cancelling examination centres; malpractice by 43 students; institution not responsible where staff and controlling authority provided by Board; follows judgment dated 19.01.2026 in Writ Petition No. 6 of 2026 with companion matters; writ petitions allowed; Aurangabad Bench.

What did the court decide?

All the writ petitions stand allowed in terms of the judgment dated 19.01.2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 6 of 2026 with companion matters, i.e., with the same directions and order passed therein. ¶32

Late Radhatai Musale Junior College Thr Its Principal Panjab Tukaram Gavhanekar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All the writ petitions stand allowed in terms of the judgment dated 19.01.2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 6 of 2026 with companion matters, i.e., with the same directions and order passed therein.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action of cancelling the petitioners' HSC examination centres for copying/malpractice during the March 2025 examination was in accordance with the procedure laid down under the regulations formulated by the Board. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The action of the respondents in cancelling the examination centres was not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the regulations formulated by the Board - the view categorically expressed in the Court's judgment dated 19.01.2026 in Writ Petition No. 6 of 2026 with companion matters, from which this Court finds no reason to depart.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

All these writ petitions are allowed with the same directions and order as passed in the judgment dated 19.01.2026 in Writ Petition No. 6 of 2026 with companion matters.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, 22 January 2026: Four junior colleges (Writ Petition Nos. 813, 814, 893 and 895 of 2026) challenged orders of the respondent authority cancelling their HSC examination centres on the ground of copying/malpractice during the March 2025 HSC examination - ranging from stray/single incidents, to three incidents (with alleged recurrences in 2018, 2019 and 2025), to 43 students found indulging in malpractice at one centre; one petitioner contended it had only provided the building while staff and controlling authority were supplied by the respondent authorities. Noting the cases could not be segregated from the identical group decided in Writ Petition No. 6 of 2026 with companion matters by judgment dated 19.01.2026, in which the Court had categorically held that the respondents' action was not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the regulations formulated by the Board for cancelling examination centres, the Bench found no reason to depart from that view and allowed all the petitions with the same directions and order.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:3433-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 813 OF 2026

¶4

P.M. Munot Junior College Through Its Principal Shikare Mathaji Eknath VERSUS

¶5

Maharashtra State Secondary And Higher Secondary Education Board

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 814 OF 2026

¶7

Late Radhatai Musale Junior College Thr Its Principal Panjab Tukaram Gavhanekar

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 893 OF 2026

¶11

Sanskruti Junior College Purna Through Its Principal Keshav Vitthal Jondhale

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 895 OF 2026

¶15

Late Nandkumar Dattatreya Bidvai Higher Secondary Vidhyalaya Through

¶16

Its Principal

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶19

Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner in WP/813/2026 Mr. S. K. Chavan, Advocate for petitioner in WP/814/2026 Mr. S. K. Chavan, Advocate for petitioner in WP/893/2026 Mr. D. B. Pokale, Advocate for petitioner in WP/895/2026 Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent-State in WP/813/2026 Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for respondent-State in WP/814/2026 Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent-State in WP/893/2026 Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for respondent-State in WP/895/2026 Mr. Umesh Mote, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in WP/895/2026 Ms. Sureka Mahajan, Advocate for Maharashtra State Board Secondary and Higher Secondary Education in respective matters

¶20

CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 22^nd January, 2026

¶21

1 of 4

¶22

WP-813-2026 & ors.odt

¶23

PER COURT (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J) :-

¶24

This group of petitions have been filed by the Educational Institution challenging the order passed by respondent authority canceling their examination centers on the ground that during the HSC examination, which were held in March 2025, there were incidences of copying / malpractice at the examination center. Each of the petitioners have contended in their petition that there has been stray incidences where the student was found with a chit. In case of some petitioners, it has been single incident while in one of the petition, there has been three incidences while in one petition, there were 43 students which were found indulging in the malpractice. As far as the petition in which there were 43 students found indulged in the act of copying. The petitioner submits that the petitioner institution has provided its building and infrastructure for the purpose of conducting HSC examination while the staff and the controlling authority for conducting exams was provided by the respondent authorities. The institution, its own staff and its management had no control over the persons who were responsible for conducting the examination. The said petitioner therefore, submitted that taking action against the institution for an act for which they are not responsible is illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

2 of 4

¶26

WP-813-2026 & ors.odt

¶27

We have heard learned counsel, Ms. Mahajan appearing for respondent authority who argued that all the petitioner institutions were found to be indulged in the malpractice and therefore, as per the policy of the board of 2025, the action has been initiated and therefore, it is justifiable. In case of institution where three incidences were found, the learned counsel submitted that the incidences have taken place repeatedly in the year 2018, 2019 and then now in 2025. She further argued that as far as the institution, where 43 students were found indulging in malpractices is a gross misconduct and failure on the part of the institution to maintain fairness and transparency while conducting the HSC examination. She further submitted that actions have been initiated against all the students who were found indulging in the malpractice and therefore, even the action against the institution is necessary and has been correctly taken.

¶28

We have heard learned counsels for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the authority and have also perused the copy of petition and its averments along with the documents produced on record from both the sides. The case of the present petitioner is not different or cannot be segregated from the cases that we have already considered in group of petition laid by Writ Petition No. 6 of 2026 with companion matters and decided by the judgment dated 19.01.2026. In

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

WP-813-2026 & ors.odt

¶31

the aforesaid judgment and order, we have considered each and every argument of the learned counsel for the respondent and have also considered the submissions that have been canvassed by the petitioner and have categorically held that the action of the respondents has not been in accordance with the procedure laid down under the regulations formulated by the board in respect of canceling the examination centers.

¶32

We do not find any reason to divert from the view that has already been expressed in the said judgment and hence, we proceed to allow all these petitions with the same directions and order passed therein. All the writ petitions stand allowed in terms of the judgment dated 19.01.2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 6 of 2026 with companion matters.

¶33

(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)

¶34

(Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

¶35

B. S. Joshi

¶36

4 of 4

¶37

WP-813-2026 & ors.odt

Late Radhatai Musale Junior College Thr Its Principal Panjab Tukaram Gavhanekar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Late Radhatai Musale Junior College Thr Its Principal Panjab Tukaram Gavhanekar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

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

Similar cases

Akshay Narendra Bendale vs the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Nashik and Others

Sanjay Shantilal Gundecha vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Rupali Panditrao Shinde and Another vs the Registrar Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Another

Shaikh Reshma Jabbar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manohar Shivaji Patil vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyandeo Namdeo Bade and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another