Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD Bench)
B.N. Deshmukh P.V. Nirgudkar, JJ.
Vinayak Pralhadrao Naik others.... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petitions Nos. 489, 678 and 968 of 1989, decided on 17-4-89.
Advocates appeared :
Umakant Patil, for the petitioners in W.P. 489.
V.B. Patil, Asstt. Government Pleader, for respondents Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 in W.P. 489.
G.N. Patil, for respondents Nos. 7 and 8 in W.P. 487.
A.M. Kanade, for the petitioners in W.P. 678.
N.K. Kakade, Government Pleader, for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in W.P. 678.
Shivajirao Scindia and Miss Sunita Kadam, for respondent No. 5 in W.P. 678.
N.B. Khandare, for petitioners in W.P. 968.
G.R. Ghuge. Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No. 1 in W.P. 968.
As already pointed out, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition on or about 16-3-88, i. e, after the last date for submitting the application forms was over. Although as a grievance it is put forward by the petitioners that many of the students could not apply for the examination because they are being at far away places. It may be seen that if now the Centre were to be allowed at Nagpur the grievance of the said students cannot be redressed because they would not be in a position to appear for the examination as the last date for submitting the application forms is already over. In fact, the fixation of Centre at Nagpur now would thus be deter mental to their interest and they could make a legitimate grievance that if the Nagpur Centre had been announced in good time, they would have applied for appearing in the said Entrance Examination and therefore the fixation of such centre now would be arbitrary and violative of the equality clauses under Article 14 of the Constitution unless the last date for making an application as suitably extended to enable them to submit their application forms for the examination.
Citizen’s Action Committee, Nagpur by its General Secretary and others, v. The Central Board of Secondary Education and others, (1989) 1 Born CR 299 at p. 304: AIR 1989 Born 178 (Nagpur Bench).
Articles 14, 226 - Examination - Students of non-recognised institutions Permission of State Government to appear for D. Ed. Examination State Government found already allowed students of similar institutions for appearing for D. Ed. Examination-Held denial of similar permission to Petitioners is discriminatory and State Government directed to admit similar placed petitioners also.
Article 14-Education-Unrecognlsed Institution-Students of such institution appearing at examination-Validity of order preventing such students from appearing at examination - Many students of similar type of institution already permitted to appear-Held, there Is discrimination in such order of prevention and hence liable to be struck down.
There is no doubt that the institutions who admitted the petitioners had acted unauthorized and acted in a very callous manner while admitting the students knowing fully well that no recognition is yet granted by the authorities to run the D. Ed. course but these were not the only institutions who have acted in this manner. From the Government circular it is clear that there were other atleast 35 institutions who had acted in the same manner. Though the Government had threatened the management of the institutions who have admitted the present petitions with dire consequences and with penal consequences also but the same Government had given a rose carpet treatment to 35 institutions who have acted in the same manner and acted illegally and callously also.
In view of the circular and in view of the concession granted by the State Government in favour of 35 institutions, there is no reason as to why the same concession cannot be granted to the petitioners and other students.
2. Apart from this, a communication is also addressed to the management by Exhibit F-1 dated 1-2-1989 (in Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989) that the management will be prosecuted for admitting students illegally without obtaining proper permission or recognition from the competent authority. In this letter, it was also mentioned that their act constitutes a criminal offence and will be dealt with accordingly.
3. The students have, therefore, filed these petitions seeking directions from this Court to enable them to appear at the D.Ed examinations commencing from 19 April, 1989. They have also contended that not only the students who have approached this Court should be granted such relief but such of those students who were admitted by these institutions and whose forms were not accepted by the respondent No. 6 should be treated similarly and granted the same relief alongwith the petitioners. Shri Patil, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,2,4 5 contended that because of the illegalities committed by the managements, the students admitted by them should not be permitted to appear for this examination as not only the institutions but even students were warned from taking admissions and education in such institutions.
4. Shri Patil, appearing for the petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989) had produced before us a Government resolution dated 27 February, 1989, by which students from as many as 35 institutions who were also not granted recognition nor approval by the competent authority had admitted students and such students were permitted to appear for the ensuing examinations commencing in April, 1989.
5. We have gone through the Government circular dated 27 February, 1989. We find that as many as nine Urdu medium institutions who have admitted students to D.Ed. course without having proper permission or recognition, the students of such institutions were allowed to fill in forms and appear for the examinations to be held in April, 1989. We are told at the Bar that apart from nine institutions imparting D.Ed. education in Urdu medium, there are 28 other institutions who had illegally admitted students were given benefit by allowing their students to appear for the examination to be held in April, 1989.
6. We are surprised to find as to how the State Government permits students from as many as not less than 35 institutions to appear for the examinations to be held in April 1989, and deny the same treatment to the students like petitioners who were admitted by the institutions who had also not obtained proper and legal recognition from the competent authorities.
7. After going through the circular of the Government dated 27 February, 1989, we have no doubt in our mind that hostile discriminatory treatment is given to the petitioners and the institutions who have admitted the petitioners. This is not to say that the institutions while admitting the students like petitioners have acted legally or lawfully or that the conduct of the institutions, which have admitted the students who are petitioners in these petitions, is justified in any manner but in view of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, we have to see in the l
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
