Bombay High Court
Milind Shiikshan Prasarak Mandal vs State Of Maharashtra Thr.Secty. & ... on 1 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2755 PF 2003.
PETITIONERS : 1. Rashtriya Shikshan Sanstha,
Wani, through its President, Babanraoji
Panghate, aged about 65 years, resident
of Weani, Distt.Yavatmal.
2. Swargiya Madhukarrao Dewalkar,
ig Samajik Va Shaikshanik Sanstha,
Vegao through its Secretary Ravindra
Madhukar Dewalkar, aged about 33 yrs.
Resident of Vegao, Tq.Maregaon, Distt.
Yavatmal.
' 3. Bhagyashree Tajne Bahuuddeshiya
Mandal through its President Bhaskar
Mahadeorao Tajne, aged 47 years,
Borgaon, Post Mendholi, Tq.Wani, Distt.
Yavatmal.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Department of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati.
3. The Education Officer,Yavatmal.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.Prashant Thakare, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms.Preeti D.Rane, AGP for the respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:34:02 :::
2
WRIT PETITION NO.4248 OF 2003.
PETITIONER : Milind Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Jodgavan, Tq.Malegaon, Distt.Washim,
through its President, Shri Rameshwar
Anandrao Chandrashekhar, aged about 36 years,
resident of Jodgavan, Tq.Malegaon, Distt.
Washim.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati, District 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. Today, this Court has disposed of identical challenge in Writ
Petition No.1351 of 2005.
2. petitioners before this Court are approved on permanent
no-grant-basis as per policy then prevailing. The word "permanent" in
order sanctioning the schools stands deleted in view of Government
Resolution dated 20th of July, 2009.
3.
Respective counsel have raised similar arguments. Learned
AGP also submitted that in terms of revised policy, eligibility and
entitlement of petitioners is being looked into by respondent no.1.
4. Therefore, for reasons recorded in Writ Petition No.1351 of
2005, we dispose of the petitions with same directions and similar
exercise and liberty to petitioners. That order also shall apply in the
present petition.
5) Rule accordingly made absolute.
No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE.
chute
