High Court · 2024
Facts
1 901.WP-10798-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 10798 / 2024Sayyad Jayan AsifAge : 6 years, Occu. Education,Minor, u/g. Of his natural grandfatherSayyed Mustafa Sayyed MoinuddinAge : 56 yrs. Occu. Labour and Business, R/o Near Podar International School,Canal Road, Taroda (Bk),Tq. and District Nanded. ..PetitionerVersus1.Union of India,Ministry of School Education and LiteracyDevelopment Department,Through its Secretary,127-C Shashtri Bhavan New Delhi011/233864512.State of MaharashtraThrough Section OfficerHome Department (Special),2nd Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai.3.The Commissioner (Education)Maharashtra State Pune.4.The Additional Chief Secretary,School Education and Sports Department,Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai-32.5.The Director for Education (Primary),The office of Directorate of EducationMaharashtra State, Administrative Building,Shivaji Nagar, Pune.6.The Divisional Commissioner,Near Delhi Gate, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar.
Legal Reasoning
6 901.WP-10798-2024.doc In view of this safeguard provided by the policy, we do not propose togrant relief to the petitioner. 12.We have gone through affidavit-in-reply of the respondent nos.8 to 10. The human intervention is not possible for allotting seat to thestudent. The schools concerned had no role to play in selecting thestudents. Apparently we do not find that there is any illegality orarbitrariness in selecting the students. The allegations of non-transparency or want of scrutiny of the details of the admittedstudents have not been corroborated by the petitioner. 13.After considering the submission of lawyers of both schools, ittranspires that they were referred the admitted students. There is novacancy in their schools. The petitioner’s name is appearing at serialno.39 in the wait list of respondent no.11/school. We find that it is notpossible to issue direction to accommodate the petitioner in either ofthe schools. The academic year has substantially progressed. We findthat no case is made out to consider the claim of the petitioner foradmission this year.14.The petitioner has also prayed for direction to conduct inquiry.The inquiry is underway. It would be open for the Education ExtensionOfficer to consider the allegations of the petitioner. 15.The writ petition is dismissed to the extent of prayer clause ‘B’and ‘C’. It stands partly allowed to the extent of prayer clause ‘D’.
Arguments
2 901.WP-10798-2024.doc 7.The Collector Nanded,Near Chhatrapati Shivaji Square Nanded.8.The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Building, ChhatrapatiSambhaji Chowk, Nanded.9.The Education Officer (Primary),Zilla Parishad Nanded.Zilla Parishad Building,Chhatrapati Sambhaji Chowk, Nanded.10.The Block Education Officer,Zilla Parishad, Nanded andPresident of The Committee constituted forscrutiny online RTE of 25% reservation 2024-2025.11.The oxford The Global SchoolAt post Puyni, Near Tilshi Paint HouseNila Road, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.Through its Principal.12.Podar International School,Opp. To Shubham Mangal Karyalaya,Purna Road, Village Ward No.11,Khum plot. Tq. Dist. NandedThrough its Principal. ..Respondents ____________________Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ghatol Patil Shahaji B.AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7/State : Mr. S.K. Tambe Advocate for Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Bhushan KulkarniAdvocate for Respondent No.11 : Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis a/w Mr. Pranav DhakeneAdvocate for Respondent No.12 : Ms. Priyanka Ashok Deshpande i/by Mr. S.S. Deshpande ____________________ 3 901.WP-10798-2024.doc CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. RESERVED ON : 13 DECEMBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 19 DECEMBER 2024FINAL ORDER [ Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J. ] :.Heard both the sides finally considering exigency in the matter.2.The petitioner is approaching this Court through his father as noadmission was given to him through 25% of the quota under Section 12of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (forshort ‘Act’) despite his eligibility. He seeks direction to respondent no.11or 12 to admit him and to conduct an enquiry against the erringofficers. 3.The petitioner participated in an online admission process forweaker and deprived sections of the society for the year 2024-25. Hisplace of residence is within the permissible limits still he has beendenied admission in respondent no.11 as well as respondentno.12/schools. He submits that ineligible students have been givenadmission through 25% of quota in flagrant abuse of GovernmentInstructions dated 16.05.2024 by showing false and bogus addresses.The process of drawing lots and admission was non-transparent.Without conducting any scrutiny, the students were referred to theschools. 4.It is further submitted that the petitioner complained to therespondent no. 9 and 10 that the admissions were given in defiance ofthe policy and the officers were also liable for the action. 4 901.WP-10798-2024.doc 5.Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 have filed affidavit-in-reply. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar appearing for them would submit that there is no vacancyin the respondent no.11 as well as respondent no.12/schools. He wouldsubmit that due procedure of law was followed while giving admissionsto the students. The scrutiny of the applications and the allotment ofthe school was done through software and there was no humanintervention. The petitioner was in wait list of the respondentno.11/school at serial no.39. He would submit that the Committee wouldbe in place to verify the information supplied by the beneficiarystudents. On instructions, he submits that Education Extension Officer,Mukhed is undertaking enquiry into allegation of the petitioner. 6.Learned Counsel Mr. Ameya Sabnis makes submissions on thebasis of affidavit-in-reply. He would submit that his school had no roleto play in the allotment of seats. In his school, 40 seats are earmarkedfor 25% of quota. The petitioner was at serial no.39 in the wait list. Noseat is vacant in his school. 7.Learned Counsel Ms. Priyanka Deshpande appearing forrespondent no.12 tenders on record a list of the admitted students inher school. There were 53 seats earmarked and all are occupied. Thename of the petitioner was not referred to her school. She would alsoadopt remaining submission of respondent no.11.8.We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.Respondent no.11 and 12/schools informed that there is no vacancy in 5 901.WP-10798-2024.doc their schools. Already they are referred the wait lists. Even if anyvacancy is created, that would not enure to the benefit of thepetitioner. Admittedly the academic year has commenced and thecurriculum progressed substantially. 9.Learned Counsel Mr. Ghatol Patil tried to demonstrate from thedocuments tendered on record and from the online applications of thestudents which are at Exhibit-D that ineligible students are admitted.The addresses of few of the admitted students disclosed from thevoter helpline and online applications are inconsistent with eligibilitynorms laid down in Government Instructions dated 16.05.2024.10.It is not possible for the Writ Court to examine the factual aspectcontended by the petitioner in respect of actual address, googleaddress, locations and the distance from the school. These aredisputed questions of facts. It is not possible for us to accept thesubmissions of the petitioner as a gospel truth. A fact finding inquiryneeds to be conducted. It is informed by Mr. Pulkundwar that EducationExtension Officer, Mukhed is conducting such inquiry. We, therefore,cannot inquire into these allegations of the petitioner.11.As per the Government Instructions, there is a Committee ofresponsible members headed by Block Education Officer. As per Clause9 of the Instructions, the Committee is empowered to consider factualdetails of the admitted students and as per Clause No.10, if it is noticedthat a student is ineligible then his admission is liable to be cancelled.
Decision
7 901.WP-10798-2024.doc 16.The Education Extension Officer, Mukhed shall consider thegrievance of the petitioner by extending him opportunity to submitmaterial in support of his complaint. 17.The writ petition is disposed of by the above directions. SHAILESH P. BRAHME S. G. MEHARE JUDGE JUDGENAJEEB..