← Library
Bombay High CourtPIL/46/2015disposed offdismissed for default

Education Promoters Society, Aurangabad v. Union Of India And Others

2017-04-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice R. M. Borde,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K.L. Wadane2 pages

911.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 46 OF 2015 EDUCATION PROMOTERS SOCIETY, AURANGABAD

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Manorkar Deepak S AGP for Respondents State: Mr. A. R. Kale Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent No.9 : Mr. P. P.Mandlik Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. J. P. Legal Associates Advocate for Respondent No.11 : Mr. D. J. choudhari Advocate for respondent No.5: Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil, Advocate for respondent No.13: Mr. Vikram S. Kadam.

CORAM

: R. M. BORDE K. L. WADANE, JJ.

DATE :

6th April, 2017 ORDER:

1.

This Court, by an order dated 21st November, 2016, directed the Education Officer, Primary to inspect Schools i.e. respondent Nos. 7 to 15 and submit report as to whether the educational institutions have complied with the requirement of admitting 25% students as prescribed under section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 2.

The Education officer has accordingly tendered report on 09.12.2016. It is reported that Jain International School, Universal High School and Delhi Public School have been granted status of minority 1/2

911.odt institutions and as such, those schools cannot be directed to observe the provisions of section 12(1) (c) of the Act and they are exempted from ensuring compliance of the aforesaid provisions. So far as other schools are concerned, it is reported that the the concerned schools have complied with the requirement of admitting 25% students as per provisions of section 12(1)(c) of the Act. It is also contended that allegation in respect of non compliance of provisions of section 12(1)(c) of the Act does not appear to be correct.

3.

Considering the report tendered by the Education Officer, the grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant P.I.L. does not appear to be correct. The P.I.L. therefore stands disposed of.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (R. M. BORDE, J. ) JPC 2/2