Mr.Manish vs Maharashtra State Board Of ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 24 Bom

                                         1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                                 
                  WRIT PETITION NO.4450 OF 2009.




                                                        
    PETITIONER: -         Mr.Manish s/o Suresh Umak,
                          Aged 28 years, Occu: Student,




                                                       
                          r/o 305/9, Shri Satya Sai Baba
                          Sahakari Gruha Sanstha, Rest 
                          House Road, New Town, Badnera,
                          Distt. Amravati (M.S.)




                                            
                               ig  ..VERSUS.. 

    RESPONDENTS:  1. Maharashtra State Board of Technical
                     Education Mumbai through its Deputy
                             
                     Secretary Regional Office, Nagpur Region,
                     Government Polytechnic Campus, Sadar,
                     Nagpur - 440 001 (M.S.)
           


                    1(A). Maharashtra State Board of Technical 
        



                           Education, Mumbai through its Secretary
                           Government Polytechnic Building, 4th
                           Floor, 49, Kherwadi, Aliyawar, Jung Marg
                           Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 (MS).





                      2. The Principal, Vidarbha Youth Welfare
                          Society's Polytechnic, Badnera Angaregaon,
                          Bari Road, Badnera Rly, Amravati - 444607
                          (Maharashtra State)





    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Mr.H.D.Dangre, Advocate for the petitioner.
    Mr.G.V.Patil, Advocate for Respondent nos.1 and 1-A.                     
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                                  C
                                     ORAM
                                          :     J.P.DEVADHAR AND
                                               A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ.

DATED : 13th October, 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.B.Chaudhari, J.)

1. Rule. Rule heard forthwith with the consent of learned

counsel for the rival parties.

2. By communication dated 7/9/2009, respondent nos.1 and

1(A) made the petitioner not eligible for direct admission to Second

year (IIIrd Semester) Diploma in Civil Engineering.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties.

4.

We find from the submissions made by Shri G.B.Patil, learned

counsel for respondent nos.1 and 1(A), that the Board has placed

reliance on the communication dated 20th November, 2008 for

making the petitioner not eligible for admission to the said course.

In the said communication dated 20th November, 2008, what is

stated is that wherever eligibility is HSC (12th with Maths, Science

and English), the students having mark-sheets bearing the

endorsement namely; ISO (Isolation) should not be held eligible

and no Certificates of eligibility should be given to such students.

The impugned order is based on the communication dated 20th

November, 2008. We find force in the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that communication

dated 20th November, 2008 does not speak about its application to

HSC with MCVC stream, which is altogether different from what is

stated in the said communication dated 20/11/2008. HSC consists

of subjects identified as J-7, J-8 and J-9, which are technical subjects

and have nothing to do with HSC (12th with Maths., Science and

English). We, therefore, find that the communication dated

20th November, 2008 does not apply to the case of the petitioner for

denying the eligibility. Having held so, we find that the impugned

communication holding the petitioner not eligible is bad in law. In

the result, we find that the present writ petition must succeed.

Therefore, we pass the following order.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of the

petition. No order as to costs.

                 JUDGE                                          JUDGE.
         



    pzc