Vaishali Bhagwan Ambhore vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9285 Bom

                                             39 wp 1309.22.odt.jud.odt
                                  1


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

              WRIT PETITION NO.1309 OF 2022


1. Sou. Vaishali Bhagwan Ambhore,
Aged about 29 years, Occ. Education
R/o. Pedgaon, Post. Chichamba Pen,
Tah. Risod, District Washim
                                       ...             PETITIONER

                     ...VERSUS...


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

2. Maharashtra Nursing Council,
through its Registrar, Office at 5th
Floor, Bombay Mutual Annex,
Gangopant, in front of
Residency Hotel, Dadabhai Navroji
Ched Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001.

3. The Collector, Washim, District
Washim

4. Savitribai Fule G.M.N. Nursing
College, I.U.D.P. Colony, Pusad Naka,
Washim District Washim, through
its Principal.

5. Nav Ankansha Sewa Bhavi Mandal,
Parbhani, Tah. & Distt. Parbhani,
through its President/Secretary,
C/o. office of Savitribai Fule G.M.N.
Nursing College, I.U.D.P. Colony,
Pusad Naka, Washim District
Washim
                                           39 wp 1309.22.odt.jud.odt
                                   2


6. Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Office,
Washim                             ...      RESPONDENTS.

                       ....



___________________________________________________
Shri S.D. Chande, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.S. Rao, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 6.
Shri A.V. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
Shri A.M.Ghare, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
___________________________________________________

           CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE : 15/09/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per: S.B. SHUKRE, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is a third year student of General

Nursing and Midwifery Course offered by respondent Nos.

4 and 5. The petitioner has not been allowed to appear at

the third year examination on the ground that she did not

complete the requisite 80% attendance in the college, in

particular her attendance in clinical studies classes.

39 wp 1309.22.odt.jud.odt

3. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the petitioner did attend the classes and her

attendance was more than 80%. But, due to some

complaint made by the petitioner, the petitioner is now

being victimized by respondent Nos.4 and 5. He also

submits that there is certificate issued by Principal of the

College stating that in the first year, the attendance of the

petitioner was already 80%. He further submits that there

is another certificate at page 34 issued by Principal of the

College disclosing that petitioner is studying in the (GNM)

Nursing College, Washim 3rd Year Class, having joined

institute in the academic year 2018-2019. He submits that

the second certificate which is at page 34 should be

considered as certificate of attendance.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5

submits that dispute is not about the attendance of the

petitioner at first year and second year classes and it is in

respect of her attendance at third year classes. He submits

that her attendance was much below the required 39 wp 1309.22.odt.jud.odt

percentage of 80% and therefore, she was not eligible for

appearing at the third year examination. In support, the

learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 has

invited our attention to various documents placed on

record, bunch of which relates to practical books of the

petitioner.

5. Upon going through the practical books of the

petitioner in respect of the third year, we find that the

claim of the petitioner raises serious dispute about the fact

of her attendance of third year classes. Even the

documents filed on record by the petitioner at pages 33

and 34 do not show that attendance of the petitioner for

the third year was at minimum of 80% of the total number

of classes.

6. About the contention that the petitioner that

she and similar other students having made the complaint

are being victimized by the college, we must say that even

this is something which would have to be agitated before

Civil Court by the petitioner, as this issue raises a disputed 39 wp 1309.22.odt.jud.odt

question of fact.

7. The disputed questions of fact raised in this

petition cannot be gone into by invoking extra ordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, not

maintainable.

8. Thus, the petition stands dismissed.

                                     JUDGE                                   JUDGE




    manisha




Signed By:MANISHA ALOK
SHEWALE


Signing Date:16.09.2022 18:23