← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1894/2017disposed offdismissed for default

Vasundhara Secondary And Higher School Paithan Through Its Headmaster S P Gaikwad v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2017-02-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K.L. Wadane2 pages

1 wp 1894.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1894 OF 2017 Vasundhara Secondary and Higher Secondary School Paithan through Its Head Master S. P. Gaikwad .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. L. WADANE, JJ.

DATE : 09TH FEBRUARY, 2017.

PER COURT :

.

Mr. Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the petitioner applied for centre of H.S.C. examination. The proposal was submitted well in time. No decision was communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner has got 214 students appearing for H.S.C. examination. The near by school i. e. Ganesh Higher Secondary School has also given no objection for its students to appear in the petitioner school for H.S.C. examination. The said centre is feasible. The centre to which the students of the petitioner school have to appear for the H.S.C. examination is situated 20

2 wp 1894.17 K.M. away. It would be inconvenient to the students to travel such a long distance. The learned counsel submits that, all these aspects are not considered by the respondent No. 2. 2.

Miss Mahajan, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that, centre at Bansarola to which the students of the petitioner school are to appear for the examination is situated at the distance of 10 K.M. There are 878 students appearing for examination.

3.

The petitioner had asked for the new centre for the present year. It appears that, proposal of the petitioner is not considered as the centre is not allotted to the petitioner. It would be too late to consider the case of the petitioner, as it is case of allotment of new centre.

4.

Considering the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner may apply for the centre in the next year, which proposal would be considered by the respondent No. 2 on merits well in time. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Feb. 17