Bombay High CourtWP/752/2015rejected at admission stage

Babnaji Maharaj Kala Va Vigyan Kanishtha Mahavidyalaya,Dehni Thr. Head Master Vijay Ramsingh Jadhav v. Mah. State Secondary And Higher Sec. Edu. Board, Amravati Division Thr. Its Divional Secretary

2015-02-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.P. Bhangale3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION No. 752/2015.

Babnaji maharaj Kala va Vigyan Kanishtha Mahavidyalaya, Dehni

VERSUS

The Maharashtra State Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Board, Amravati. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2015.

Heard Shri A.I.Sheikh, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri A. Parchure, learned Counsel for the respondent.

Petitioners had a centre for conducting Board Examinations for almost 20 years. The centre is now shifted to a place by name 'Digras', and grievance of petitioners is, it is about 25 kms. away, and as public transport is not available, students will be put to

inconvenience.

Shri Sheikh, learned Counsel for petitioners also points out that there is non-application of mind because a non-existent provision i.e. Section 83(4) has been mentioned. He further submits that schools in the vicinity have been again attached to different schools which are situated at even longer distances. Had those schools been attached to the school of petitioners, there would not have been any deficiency of students.

Shri Parchure, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that number of students were less. After considering the entire material a conscious decision has been taken and centre has been provided at Digras. He submits that, the frequency of buses plying between or via the place where the school of petitioners is located, to Digras is sufficiently high.

As we find that Board has looked into all relevant material, merely because centre was with the petitioners for sufficiently long years, that does not mean that it cannot be shifted elsewhere.

As we find no right of petitioners being violated, Writ Petition is, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd