Bombay High Court
Savitribai Fule Bahuddeshiya ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Deptt. ... on 1 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1351 PF 2005.
PETITIONER : Savitribai Fule Bahuddeshiya
Mahila Shikshan Sanstha, Tq.Karanja,
(Lad), Distt.Washim through its President
Smt.Bebitai Rajabhau Chauhan.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1) The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Education Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2) The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati. Distt.Amravati.
3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Washim, Distt.Washim.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.R.S.Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Preeti D.Rane, AGP for the respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
AND P.N.DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED: 1st APRIL, 2016.
JUDGMENT (Per B.P.Dharmadhikari,J.)
1. Petitioner - Management complains of discrimination, as
word "permanent" in order permitting a school to be started by it has
not been deleted and therefore it continues to be on permanent
no-grant-basis.
2. Shri Parsodkar states that after filing of petition on 28 th of
July, 2009, State Government has issued another Government
Resolution and introduced a revised policy. As per that policy, from all
such orders, if the school sanctioned is not imparting instructions in
English medium, word "permanent" has been deleted. With the result,
the Schools become eligible to grant in stages and entitlement of
petitioner thereto needs to be examined. He contends that if revised
policy and the policy by which the schools are allowed to come on grant
solely in stages as per G.R. Dated 11 th of October, 2000 is applied to
petitioner, petitioner would have started receiving some grant in 2012-
2013.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that edibility
of petitioner to grants needs to be examined after considering some
factors. However, the benefit of new policy is being conferred upon
petitioner and its eligibility therefor is being examined by the State
Government. Upon instructions, she states that as per new policy
envisaged in G.R. dated 20th of July, 2009, eligibility and entitlement of
petitioner is under scrutiny.
4. In view of limited grievance made by petitioner before this
Court and the statement made by learned AGP, upon instructions, we
find that interest of justice can be met with by directing respondent
no.1 to expedite the process of consideration. The Government
Resolution dated 20th of July, 2009 has effect of omitting word
"permanent" from approval given to school of petitioner. Accordingly,
in terms of that Government Resolution, respondent no.1 shall
complete evaluation of the school of petitioner within six months. If
the school of petitioner is found eligible to receive grant, the grant shall
be released to said school, in accordance with law, within next three
months.
5. If necessary, opportunity of hearing shall be extended to
petitioner.
6. Acceptance of benefit of grant by petitioner or its
participation in the process shall not preclude the petitioner from
challenging the correctness of the exercise undertaken.
7. With these directions, we partly allow Writ Petition and
dispose it of.
No costs.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE.
chute
