Sayyed Asif Abdul vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1996 Bom

                                           1                       W.P.No.7840/16

                                        UNREPORTED

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

                                          BOMBAY

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


                               WRIT PETITION NO.7840 OF 2016


          Sayyed Asif Abdul
          Age 22 years, Occ.Student,
          R/o Antarwali, Post Kukana,
          Tq. Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.

                           Versus

          1. The State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary,
          Social Welfare Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

          2. The Joint Director,
          Technical Education,
          Pune 412-E, Shivajinagar,
          Pune 411 016.

          3. Pune District Association
          College of Engineering,
          Hadapsar, Manjri Road,
          Pune, through its Principal,

          4. District Social Welfare
          Officer, Pune.                              ... Respondents.


                                               ...


          Mr.H.A.Joshi, advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr.P.N.Kutti, A.G.P. for the State.
          None for Respondent No.3.

                                               ...




::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017                         ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:30:59 :::
                                               2                    W.P.No.7840/16

                                     CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                             SANGITRAO S. PATIL,JJ.

Date : 25.04.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. Leave to add District Social Welfare

Officer, as a party.

2. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for the

added party.

3. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the parties, the petition is taken

up for final hearing.

4. The petitioner seeks reimbursement of

the educational fees for the academic year 2013-

14, 2015-16 in favour of Respondent No.3.

5. Learned counsel submits that the

petitioner was admitted to the course of

Engineering (Mechanical) from the VT category.

The petitioner at the relevant time did not

possess the validity certificate. Subsequently,

on 17.10.2015 validity certificate is issued in

favour of the petitioner. However, the

petitioner is not being given the benefit of

reimbursement of education fees only on the

ground that the validity is submitted late.

6. We have heard learned A.G.P.

7. The Respondent No.3 has filed affidavit

to the effect that if this Court allows the

petition then the documents would be handed over

to the petitioner.

8. The petitioner shall be entitled for

the reimbursement of the fees as is applicable to

the VJ category candidate as validity certificate

is already submitted.

9. In light of the above, Rule is made

absolute in terms of prayer clauses B and C. The

petitioner shall be entitled for the

reimbursement of the fees as is applicable to the

VJ category candidate.

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

asp/office/wp7840.16