Bombay High CourtWP/8832/2013disposed offdismissed for default

Suresh Narayanrao Karhade And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2015-03-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.L. Achliya2 pages

wp8832-13 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8832 OF 2013 SURESH NARAYANRAO KARHADE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Pawar P.S. For Pet. 2,3 And 6 AGP for Respondents State: Mrs.R.K.Ladda Adv.Paranjape Prakash S R/3 ...

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & V. L.ACHLIYA, JJ.

DATED : 5th MARCH, 2015 P.C. :- We have heard Mr.Pawar, learned counsel for petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the curriculum has undergone change and the revised syllabus is being implemented. Because of the same, almost seven hundred institutions affiliated to the respondent no.2 would be affected. According to the learned counsel, the revised syllabus was implemented in the year 2006. As per the need, the revision in syllabus of Mandal has to be done with consultation of the general body. In the present case, procedure has not been followed.

The petitioners were taken by surprise about the intimation given by Chairman of the examination committee in the house journal Sangeet Kala Vihar of July 2011 stating about the revision of syllabus and suggestions being invited by 31/7/2011 and the syllabus is revised in the month of August 2012. The examination held in the month of November-December 2013 as per the new syllabus would not be appropriate. The implementation of the revised curriculum is illegal. Now students would not be in a position to cope up with the said change in syllabus.

wp8832-13 -22] Mr. Paranjape, learned counsel for respondent submits that proper procedure has been followed. The petitioner no.2 is the past President and is the Member of the management council and he was present when the management council passed resolution to implement new curriculum. At that time, he did not oppose the curriculum or enforcement thereof. According to learned counsel, for the revision and up-gradation in the curriculum, sanction of the general body is not required.

3] To decide the curriculum or to upgrade the curriculum is the work of the experts. Even otherwise, the said curriculum has been revised in the year 2011 and has been subsequently implemented. It is implemented for more than 2 years now. This year would be the third year of conducting examinations as per the new curriculum. 4] In light of above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

V.L.ACHLIYA, J.

S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

umg/