[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kai. Rekhaji Naik Higher Secondary ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 19 January, 2026
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2026:BHC-AUG:1986-DB
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6 OF 2026
Krushi va Gramin Vikas Pratishtan's
Raje Shahaji Kashinath Mahavidyalaya,
At Ambelohol, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Ch. Sambhajinagar,
Through the Principal,
Changdev Narayan Pawar,
Age : 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Talwada, Sub. Vaijapur,
Dist.Ch. Sambhajinagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Board,
Through its Secretary,
S.R. No.831-A, Final Plot No.178, 179,
Near Balchitrawani, Behind Agarkar
Research Institute, Bhamburda,
Shivajinagar, Pune - 411004.
3. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Board,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Through its Divisional Secretary,
Railway Station Road,
Ch. Sambhajinagar ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2026
1. Onkar Kalyan Rajdev
Age 19 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Shambhari Vasti, Godegaon,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{2}
2. Sanket Jagannath Rajdev,
Age 17 years, Occu. Education,
U/g. Jagannath Raosaheb Rajdev
Age: 54 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. Godegaon, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
3. Rutuja Yogesh Sadhye,
Age 16 years, Occu. Education,
U/g. Yogesh Sheshrao Sadhye,
Age: 38 Yrs., Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. Dighi, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
4. Sakshi Harishchandra Suse,
Age 17 years, Occu. Education,
U/g. Harishchandra Bhanudas Suse,
Age: 47 Yrs., Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. Yesgaon, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
5. Janhvi Jagdish Jaiswal,
Age 17 years, Occu. Education,
U/g. Jagdish Suklal Jaiswal,
Age: 42 Yrs., Occu.: Agri.
R/o. Jikthan, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
6. Aditya Ram Pawar,
Age 17 years, Occu. Education,
U/g. Ram Daulat Pawar,
Age: 45 Yrs. Occu.: Agri.
R/o. Kankori, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
7. Gitanjali Sakhahari Wagh,
Age 17 years, Occu. Education,
U/g. Alka Sakhahari Wagh,
Age: 36 Yrs. Occu.: Household,
R/o. Sillegaon, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
8. Anjali Udhav Mhaske,
Age 17 years, Occu. Education,
U/g. Udhav Waman Mhaske
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{3}
Age: 46 Yrs. Occu.: Agri.
R/o. Shendurwadha, Murshidabad,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
9. Sagar Ganesh Mhaske,
Age 16 years, Occu. Education,
U/g. Ganesh Babasaheb Mhaske,
Age: 44 Yrs. Occu.: Agri.
R/o. Tandulwadi, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar.
10. Ganesh Sanjay Rodge,
Age 16 years, Occu. Education,
U/g. Tarabai Sanjay Rodge
Age: 44 Yrs. Occu.: Agri.
R/o. Zanzardi, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Board,
Through its Secretary,
S.R. No.831-A, Final Plot No.178, 179,
Near Balchitrawani, Behind Agarkar
Research Institute, Bhamburda,
Shivajinagar, Pune - 411004.
3. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Board,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division,
Through its Divisional Secretary,
Railway Station Road,
Ch. Sambhajinagar.
4. Krushi va Gramin Vikas Pratishtan's
Raje Shahaji Kashinath Mahavidyalaya,
At Ambelohol, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Ch. Sambhajinagar,
Through the Principal ... Respondents
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{4}
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 48 OF 2026
1. Rashtramata Uccha Madhaymik
Vidyalaya, Vajegaon, Tq. & Dist. Nanded,
Through its Head Master,
Tukaram Baliram Gadekar,
Age:50 Years, Occu. Lservice,
Having Office at
Rashtramata Uccha Madhaymik
Vidyalaya, Vajegaon, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
2. Swami Vivekanand Gramin Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Betsangavi,
Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
Avadhutrao Abarao Kshirsagar,
Age: 55 years, Occu. Service
R/o. Sambhajinagar, Taroda Br.
Tq. & Dist. Nanded ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division Latur,
Taluka & Dist. Latur.
3. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education,
Latur Divisional Board,
Having office at Sut Mill area,
Kanheri Road,
Behind Rajasthan School,
Gajanan Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
......
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{5}
WRIT PETITION NO. 77 OF 2026
1. Shivniketan Madhamik & Uccha Madhayamik
Vidyalaya, Sawargaon (N), Tq. & Dist. Nanded,
Through its Head Master,
Gajanan Chandrakant Joshi,
Age:50 Years, Occu. Lservice,
Shivniketan Madhamik & Uccha Madhayamik
Vidyalaya, Sawargaon (N), Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
2. Rani lakshmibai Shikshan Sanstha,
Yashwantnagar, Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded
Through its Secretary
Sindhutai Shankarao Tale,
Age: 75 years, Occu. Service
R/o. Yashwantnagar,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division Latur,
Taluka & Dist. Latur.
3. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education,
Latur Divisional Board,
Having office at Sut Mill area,
Kanheri Road,
Behind Rajasthan School,
Gajanan Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 236 OF 2026
Pratibha Niketan Secondary and Higher
Secondary Ashram School, Manohar Tanda,
Tq. Ausa, District Latur
Through its Headmaster,
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{6}
Narsing Gangaram Gaikwad,
Age: 57 Years, Occu.: Service,
Manohar Tanda, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education,
Divisional Board, Latur
Through its Divisional Secretary. ... Respondents
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2026
1. Eklavya Magas Sewa Samiti,
Mankhed, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District Latur
Through its President,
Dr. Shashikiran Uttamrao Bhikane,
Age: 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Mankhed, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District Latur.
2. Post Basic Ashram Junior College,
Dhalegaon, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District Latur
Through its Principal ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education,
Divisional Board, Latur
Through its Divisional Secretary. ... Respondents
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{7}
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2026
Arts and Science Junior Colllege,
Run by Jaibhavani Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Through its Principal
Prof. Sadashiv Haribhau Sarkate,
Age: 54 Years, Occu.: Principal
Having office at Patoda, Tq. Patoda
Dist. Beed. ... Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Board,
Divisional Board at Chh. Sambhajinagar
Through its Divisional Secretary.
Railway Station Road, Chh. Sambhaninagar
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar ... Respondents
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 466 OF 2026
1. Shamjivi Samaj Kalyan Mandal, Hadolti,
Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Dharashiv,
Through its Secretary
Krishna Shivajirao Dalnar,
Age: 31, Occu.: Business,
R/o. At Post - Shivaji Dalnar,
Ranisawargaon, Dist. Parbhani.
2. Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Junior
College, Ranisawargaon, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani, Through its Principal
Bonnar Renukadas Yashwantrao,
Age: 50 Occu.: Service,
R/o. Bonnar Yashwantrao, Bothi,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
The School, Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 4000032.
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{8}
2. The Director of Education (Secondary),
State of Maharashtra, Pune - 411 001.
3. The Deputy Director of Education
(Secondary),
Chh. Sambhajinagar Division,
Chh. Sambhajinagar.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
5. The Secretary,
Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary & Higher Secondary Education,
Divisional Board in Pune.
6. The Chairman,
Chh.Sambhajinagar Divisional Board/Circle,
Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Tq. & Dist.Chh. Sambhajinagar.
7. The Divisional Secretary,
Chh. Sambhajinagar Divisional Board/Circle,
Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Tq. & Dist.Chh. Sambhajinagar.
8. The Assistant Secretary,
Chh. Sambhajinagar Divisional Board/Circle,
Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Tq. & Dist.Chh. Sambhajinagar. ... Respondents
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 469 OF 2026
Sant Pachlegaonkar Maharaj Junior College,
Kothala, Tq. Sonpeth, District : Parbhani,
Through its Principal namely;
Atmaling Baburao Tupkare,
Age: 39 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Kothala, Tq. Sonpeth,
District : Parbhani. ... Petitioner
Versus
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{9}
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai -32.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
3. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad)
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) Division,
Railway Station Road, Chh. Sambhaninagar
(Aurangabad)
Through its Divisional Secretary ... Respondents
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 470 OF 2026
Late Rupchand Pawar Junior College,
Sakhara, Tq. Sengaon, District: Hingoli,
Through its Principal namely;
Raus Sahebrao Pawar,
Age: 35 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o.Sakhara, Tq. Sengaon,
District : Hingoli. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai -32.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
3. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad)
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) Division,
Railway Station Road, Chh. Sambhaninagar
(Aurangabad)
Through its Divisional Secretary ... Respondents
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{10}
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 537 OF 2026
Kai. Rekhaji Naik Higher Secondary
Ashram School, (Junior College) Malewadi,
Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani
Through Headmaster,
Ramchandra Baburao Pawar,
Age: 38 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Malewadi, Tq. Gangakhed,
District : Parbhani. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education,
Divisional Board, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Through its Divisional Secretary ... Respondents
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 556 OF 2026
Jaybhavani Secondary and Higher Secondary
Ashram School, (Junior College) Mojmabad,
Tq. Palam, District Parbhani
Through Headmaster,
Balasaheb Thavru Rathod
Age: 50 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Mojmabad, Tq. Palam,
District : Parbhani. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{11}
2. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education,
Divisional Board, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Through its Divisional Secretary ... Respondents
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 582 OF 2026
Jijau Higher Secondary School,
Shelgaon, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna,
Through its Principal
Kavita W/o. Gajanan Walke,
Age: 43 Years, Occu.: Service as Principal,
R/o.109, New Mondha Road, Shrikrushna
Rukhmininagar, Jalna. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Through its Secretary
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zillha Parishad, Jalna ... Respondents
......
WRIT PETITION NO.601 OF 2026
Narsamata Secondary and Higher
Secondary Ashram School, Navandi,
Tq. Udgir, District Latur
Through its Headmaster,
Sanjiv Vithal Pulle,
Age: 57 Years, Occu.: Service
R/o.Navandi, Tq. Udgir, District Latur ... Petitioner
Versus
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{12}
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education,Divisional Board, Latur,
Through its Divisional Secretary ... Respondents
......
WRIT PETITION NO. 603 OF 2026
Narsamata Secondary and Higher
Secondary Ashram School, Navandi,
Tq. Udgir, District Latur
Through its Headmaster,
Sanjiv Vithal Pulle,
Age: 57 Years, Occu.: Service
R/o.Navandi, Tq. Udgir, District Latur ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School, Education and Sport
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education,Divisional Board, Latur,
Through its Divisional Secretary ... Respondents
......
Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Ashutosh S. Kulkarni,
Advocate for Petitioner in WP/6/2026
Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Mr. Narendra D. Sonavane, Advocate
for Petitioners in WP/33/2026
Mr. V.D.Sapkal Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R.N.Patil and Mr. S.R.Sapkal,
Advocates for Petitioners in WP/466/2026
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{13}
Mr. Vinayak P. Narwade, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/48/2026 &
WP/77/2026
Mr. Shri. Vinod B. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/236/2026,
WP/241/2026, WP/237/2026 & WP/556/2026
Mr. Shanmbhuraje V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner in
WP/429/2026
Mr. V.S.Panpatte and Mr. A.N.Nagargoje, Advocates for Petitioners in
WP/469/2026 & WP/470/2026
Mr. Dnyaneshwar B.Pokale, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/582/2026
Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner WP/601/2026 &
WP603/2026
Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Chh.Sambhajinagar in
respective matters
Ms. Asha S. Rasal, Advocate for Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education Divisional Board, Latur in respective
matters.
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader, Mr. S.B. Narwade, Mr. R.S. Wani,
Mr. Abhijit M. Phule, Mr. V.M. Kagne, Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGPs in
respective matters
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16 JANUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 19 JANUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitions are taken up for
final disposal at the stage of admission.
2. These petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. They challenge orders, including the order dated 18.12.2025
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{14}
passed by respondent No.3, the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar
Divisional Board, whereby the examination centres of the petitioner
institutions were cancelled for the purpose of conducting Higher
Secondary Certificate (HSC) examinations. The petitioners also seek
consequential reliefs directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to continue the
examination centres already allotted to their respective junior colleges.
3. The petitions are a bunch of matters instituted by different
colleges against similar action taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3. One
writ petition i.e. WP/33/2026 has been filed by students. As they
involve a common issue and arise from a substantially similar factual
backdrop, we heard all petitions together. On behalf of the petitioners,
learned Senior Counsel Mr. Katneshwarkar and learned Senior Counsel
Mr. Sapkal argued at length. Learned advocates appearing in other
petitions adopted the arguments advanced by the said learned Senior
Counsel. Hence, all petitions are being decided by a common judgment
and order. The factual matrix across petitions is materially the same,
save and except certain dates and individualized events which do not
materially affect adjudication of the core issue. We, therefore, record
the facts of the lead matter being Writ Petition No.6 of 2026, which
would govern the decision in the connected matters.
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{15}
4. The petitioners are educational institutions running junior
colleges, duly permitted and recognized to impart education for
standards XI and XII in Arts, Commerce and Science streams, and
possessing requisite permissions and grants from competent
departments. For several years, the petitioners have held recognition for
conducting Class XII Board examinations at their own premises. It is
pleaded that the petitioner institutions possess adequate infrastructure,
duly equipped classrooms, and approvals/sanctions from local bodies,
and that they regularly conduct their internal examinations and have,
for years, conducted Board examinations without any complaint of
malpractice or any punitive action.
5. It is the petitioners' case that during the February-March 2025
Board examination season, an unfortunate incident occurred at the
petitioner's examination centre: during the English paper on
11.02.2025, one student was found indulging in copying/cheating. The
petitioners assert that this was a solitary, stray incident by one
candidate; that the rest of the examinations were conducted smoothly;
and that there was no allegation of institutional involvement,
connivance, mass copying, or a systemic breakdown.
6. In July 2025, the petitioners received a show cause notice from
Respondent No.3 calling upon them to explain why the recognition of
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{16}
their college as an HSC examination centre should not be cancelled. The
petitioners submitted a reply explaining that out of hundreds of
candidates and multiple examination days, there was only one incident
attributable to one student; that the institution did not indulge in or
facilitate malpractice; and that no drastic action of cancelling the centre
was warranted. Thereafter, the petitioners were called to appear before
the authority and were asked to submit an undertaking that such
incident would not occur in future. According to the petitioners, despite
the reply and despite absence of any inquiry report concluding against
the institution, the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 came to be issued
cancelling the centre.
7. The petitioners contend that the divisional board initiated action
purportedly relying upon a circular dated 29.01.2025 issued by
respondent No.2, which contemplates action such as
closure/cancellation of centres in cases involving "various instances" of
cheating/copying or "mass copying". The petitioners argue that the said
circular is inapplicable to a case of one isolated instance and that the
reliance placed upon it is misconceived and disproportionate. The
petitioners further place reliance upon a communication/circular dated
05.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2 advising divisional boards to
consider student welfare before taking drastic steps of closing centres.
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{17}
According to the petitioners, Respondent No.3 failed to consider these
directions, and acted arbitrarily.
8. The petitioners also contend that of a total of 42 centres where
some incidence of copying/cheating was noted, no action was taken
against 15 centres, thereby suggesting discriminatory treatment and
non-uniform application of standards. It is further asserted that the
impugned action was taken in undue haste and without disclosure of
material relied upon; that the petitioners sought documents by written
applications and under the Right to Information Act; and that such
requests remain unanswered, thereby vitiating fairness and
transparency.
9. The petitioners plead that upon cancellation, candidates were
shifted to an alternative centre at village Ranjangaon Shera (as stated
by the petitioners), said to be around 14 kilometres from the petitioner's
college. The petitioners stress that many of their students already travel
long distances, and shifting the centre further would cause substantial
hardship, especially in the examination period where time, safety, and
certainty are crucial. They contend that the respondents failed to
consider student interest and welfare, and that the impugned decision
stigmatizes the institution, harming its reputation built over years.
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{18}
10. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Katneshwarkar submitted that the
impugned action is contrary to and in violation of the procedure laid
down in the "SSC and HSC Examination Centre, Amended Standards"
framed by the executive/standing committee on 04.07.2019. He
referred to Clause 2 relating to closure of examination centres, and in
particular sub-clause (3) thereof, which, as argued, contemplates
inclusion of centres in a closure list where there is "nuisance" during
examinations for a continuous period of three years or more, with an
annual report and maintenance of such list. It was urged that the
petitioners' centre was never included in any such list, nor were there
continuous incidents spanning three years, and hence the basic
jurisdictional prerequisites for closure were absent.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further referred to the procedure in the
standards/regulations for closure, namely: issuance of a clear show
cause notice in June-July identifying deficiencies; grant of 15 days for
reply; consideration and hearing by the competent committee; and
communication of the decision in writing within a stipulated time,
including adherence to timelines such as communication by 15 October.
It was urged that though the show cause notice was issued on
09.07.2025 and the reply was submitted in August 2025, the final order
is dated 18.12.2025, i.e., after about five months, thereby violating
prescribed timelines and creating uncertainty at the threshold of the
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{19}
next examination season. It was submitted that the hearing was not
meaningful nor before the competent committee, and that the
impugned order is cryptic, bereft of reasons, and therefore arbitrary.
12. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon the minutes of
a meeting dated 10.11.2025 of an ad-hoc (" tadarth") committee,
particularly a tabulation that recorded "office opinion" and "final
decision". It was argued that the office opinion stated the centre could
not be closed, whereas the final decision reflected only
re-allotment/alignment of the centre to another institution/zone
without recording reasons that could justify permanent cancellation. It
was submitted that the decision-making reflected inconsistency and
non-application of mind.
13. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sapkal, adopting the above
submissions, added that during Board examinations the supervisory and
invigilation staff is deputed by the Collector/competent authorities and
not appointed by the institution; the institution's role is largely to
provide premises and infrastructure; and the institution does not control
the conduct of the examination once the board/administration deploys
staff. It was submitted that if malpractice occurred despite deployment
of external staff, then responsibility should be fixed after inquiry on the
concerned staff, and it is arbitrary to impose the gravest institutional
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{20}
consequence upon the college without identifying culpability or
connivance.
14. Per contra, learned counsel Ms. Surekha Mahajan for the
contesting respondents raised a preliminary objection as to
maintainability and locus standi. It was submitted that a college has no
enforceable right to demand an examination centre; allotment and
continuation of centres is within the discretion of Respondent Nos.2 and
3; and the petition is therefore not maintainable. On merits, it was
submitted that the State constituted standing committees and divisional
committees empowered under the governing Act and Regulations; that
these committees act on behalf of the State Board; and that decisions
taken are within jurisdiction.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned action was
taken pursuant to the "100-day programme" and campaign to eradicate
copying ("copy-mukt abhiyan") aimed at ensuring free and fair
examinations, in light of reported rampant malpractices. It was argued
that to enforce strictness, the administration decided that where
malpractice is recorded, action would be initiated against the centre. It
was submitted that the Collector, as chairman of a monitoring/dakshata
committee, had powers to schedule examinations and deploy staff for
implementing the programme.
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{21}
16. It was also urged that many students choose distant centres with
an oblique motive to obtain favourable results, and that staff from other
colleges is often deputed based on intelligence inputs of malpractice
risk. It was submitted that due process was followed: show cause notice
was issued, reply considered, hearing provided, and thereafter a
decision was taken. It was argued that there is no prejudice because the
new centre is within the zone and at a short distance (respondents
contended it is about 9 kilometres), and that hall tickets for the
February/March 2026 examination were already prepared for online
dispatch with QR codes linked to the allotted centres; interference at a
late stage would disrupt the examination programme. On these
grounds, dismissal was sought on maintainability and merits.
17. We have considered the pleadings, the impugned orders, and the
material placed on record, and we have heard learned counsels for the
parties. We first deal with the preliminary objection as to
maintainability. The respondents' contention proceeds on the premise
that since a college cannot demand an examination centre as a matter
of right, it cannot challenge cancellation. This conflates two distinct
matters. One is the initial grant/allotment of a centre, which may
involve administrative discretion. The other is withdrawal/cancellation
of an existing centre that has been granted and continued for years,
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{22}
which carries civil consequences. In the latter case, the institution is
visited with adverse consequences, including stigma and reputational
injury, and the decision affects students who have been associated with
that centre. Once an examination centre is allotted and consistently
continued, the institution acquires, at minimum, the right to insist that
withdrawal is not arbitrary; that it conforms to the governing
standards/regulations; and that principles of fairness, transparency, and
reasoned decision-making are observed. None of the petitioners before
us are demanding creation of a new centre as an initial privilege; they
challenge cancellation of an existing centre. We therefore reject the
objection on maintainability and hold that the petitions are
maintainable.
18. On merits, the central issue is whether the cancellation orders
suffer from arbitrariness, violation of prescribed standards/procedure,
absence of reasons, disproportionality, and want of
jurisdiction/competence in the decision-making process; and whether,
in the facts pleaded, such an extreme institutional consequence can be
sustained.
19. We have perused the impugned order. It makes reference to an
incident of malpractice during the English paper on 11.02.2025 and
thereafter, in a conclusory manner, records that the examination centre
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{23}
stands cancelled. The order is cryptic. It does not describe the nature of
the irregularity, whether it was copying by a candidate, whether any
material was seized, whether any supervisory lapse was found, whether
any complicity was attributed, or whether the incident was of mass
scale or isolated. It does not demonstrate consideration of the
petitioner's reply to the show cause notice. It does not record why the
explanation was unacceptable or why a lesser corrective measure would
not suffice. In administrative law, particularly where an order has grave
civil consequences, reasons are the heartbeat of the decision. Recording
of reasons is not a mere formality; it demonstrates application of mind,
assures fairness, enables judicial review, and instills public confidence
that the power has not been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Where
the consequence is permanent cancellation of an examination centre
which is an action akin to a major penalty for the institution then the
reasons must be clear, relevant, and proportionate to the material.
20. The respondents, in their reply, have admitted that it was a
single stray incident involving one candidate. Once this is the admitted
factual position, then by its very nature it does not automatically fall
within categories such as "mass copying" or "various instances" of
malpractice, unless there is additional material indicating systemic
involvement or repeated occurrences. No such material is reflected in
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{24}
the impugned order. Even where the State's objective is to maintain
sanctity of examinations and eradicate cheating, the response must be
calibrated. A zero-tolerance policy towards cheating cannot mean non-
reasoned, mechanically imposed collective punishment on an institution
for the act of a single examinee, absent a finding of complicity,
persistent negligence, or repeated breakdown of safeguards.
21. We also find substance in the petitioners' contention that the
procedure contemplated in the standards/regulations has not been
complied with. The petitioners have pointed to specific steps and
timelines: the nature of show cause, the time for reply, the requirement
of meaningful hearing by the competent committee, and the
requirement of communication within a stipulated timeline (including
reference to communication by 15 October). In the present matter, the
show cause notice was issued on 09.07.2025; the petitioner's reply was
submitted in August 2025; and the decision cancelling the centre is
dated 18.12.2025. The delay is not merely a technical deviation. It
undermines predictability and fairness in academic administration.
Examination centre allocation affects thousands of candidates and
families. A delayed decision close to the next examination season,
without demonstrable urgency or recorded reasons for delay, increases
the risk of avoidable hardship and administrative chaos. If the standards
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{25}
prescribe timelines, it is because the system needs certainty well in
advance of February/March examinations.
22. Further, the record as argued indicates that the competent
committee requirement is not shown to have been satisfied. The
respondents seek to justify jurisdiction by reference to standing
committees and their authority as agents of the State Board. Even
assuming committees exist with broad powers, the law still requires that
the particular power be exercised by the designated competent body
following the mandated procedure and with recorded reasons. The
minutes of the meeting dated 10.11.2025, as relied upon in argument,
do not convincingly establish that a reasoned decision to permanently
cancel the petitioners' centres was taken by the competent committee in
the manner communicated by the impugned order. Rather, there
appears a disconnect between internal deliberations and the impugned
communication. A citizen or institution must not be left to speculate
which committee decided what, on what material, and why. A decision
affecting rights and reputation must be traceable to the competent
authority and communicated as such.
23. The respondents' submission that hall tickets with QR codes
were already prepared and therefore interference would disrupt the
programme cannot validate an order that is otherwise illegal.
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{26}
Administrative convenience cannot cure a jurisdictional defect,
procedural illegality, or the absence of reasons. Moreover, if the
respondents themselves issued the cancellation in December 2025, they
cannot take advantage of the urgency created by their own delayed
action to defeat judicial review. The balance of convenience in
education matters must be assessed with a view to legality and student
welfare. If the petitioners' centres have been functioning for years and
are now cancelled by a cryptic, procedurally defective order, it is
student welfare and not administrative finality of QR-coded hall tickets
that must prevail, subject of course to strict conditions ensuring
fairness.
24. We also consider the argument that the institution has no
control over the staff deputed by the authorities. We agree with the
broader principle that responsibility must be fixed where it lies. In
Board examinations, supervision and invigilation are controlled by the
Board's machinery and administration. If the allegation is institutional
connivance, there must be a recorded finding based on material. If the
allegation is mere occurrence of copying by a candidate detected and
acted upon, then the system worked to that extent; the answer then is
strengthening vigilance and fixing responsibility on those who failed,
rather than imposing an irreversible stigma upon an institution without
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{27}
findings. Institutional cancellation can be justified where there is
established complicity, tolerance of mass malpractice, repeated
incidents, or demonstrable failure over time despite warnings. That is
not what emerges on the record before us, particularly when the
respondents admit the incident was solitary.
25. We therefore hold that the impugned orders suffer from (i)
absence of reasons and non-application of mind; (ii) violation of the
procedure and timelines contemplated under the governing
standards/regulations; (iii) lack of demonstrated jurisdictional
compliance with the requirement that the competent committee take
and communicate the decision; and (iv) disproportionality, inasmuch as
the gravest institutional consequence has been imposed on the admitted
premise of one stray incident by a candidate, without findings of
institutional involvement or repeated malpractice.
26. Having held so, we consider it necessary to record, emphatically,
that ensuring free, fair, and malpractice-free examinations for standards
X and XII is of overriding public interest. Students are the future of the
nation. In contemporary competitive conditions, even marginal marks
can determine admissions, scholarships, and careers. Any dilution of
examination integrity is a direct injustice to honest students who
prepare diligently. The State's objective to implement programmes
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{28}
aimed at a "copy-free" examination environment is laudable and
necessary. Courts will support strict measures that are lawful, reasoned,
proportionate, and uniformly implemented. At the same time, rule of
law requires that even in pursuit of the most legitimate ends, public
power must be exercised within the bounds of procedure, fairness, and
rationality. The legitimacy of anti-cheating enforcement is strengthened,
not weakened, when it is implemented transparently with documented
reasons, calibrated consequences, and accountability of the officials
actually conducting examinations.
27. We are also conscious that examination governance is a shared
responsibility. Institutions that provide premises must create an
environment of discipline and vigilance. Authorities that deploy staff
must ensure staff competence and integrity, and must fix accountability
when lapses occur. A system that punishes only institutions while
leaving supervisory lapses unaddressed is neither fair nor effective in
deterrence.
28. In that view, while allowing these petitions, we consider it
appropriate to issue regulatory directions, in the nature of safeguards,
which are necessary to balance student welfare, institutional fairness,
and examination integrity. These directions are intended to ensure that
examination centres function under strict surveillance and that
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{29}
responsibility is fixed precisely, thereby protecting meritorious students
and maintaining confidence in the Board's processes.
29. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned
orders cancelling the petitioner institutions' examination centres,
including the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.3, are
quashed and set aside.
30. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to restore and continue the
examination centres of the petitioners for the ensuing examinations
scheduled from February 2026, including examinations for standards X
and XII, subject to compliance with the conditions and safeguards
recorded herein.
• PETITIONERS TO FILE UNDERTAKING
31. Each petitioner institution shall, within a period of two weeks
from today, submit an undertaking on its letterhead, duly signed by the
Head of the Institution, stating in clear terms that the institution shall
take all precautionary measures to ensure examinations at its premises
are conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner; it shall not
tolerate any malpractice, copying, use of prohibited material,
impersonation, or any irregularity; it shall cooperate with all
inspections, flying squads, and surprise checks; and it shall promptly
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{30}
report any suspicious activity to the Centre In-charge and the Board
authorities. The undertaking shall further state that the institution shall
facilitate installation and functioning of monitoring mechanisms as
directed by the Board.
• PRECAUTIONS AND FACILITATES BY EXAMINATION CENTRE
32. Each Examination institution shall, at its own cost and in
coordination with the Centre In-charge, ensure the following minimum
safeguards such as regulated entry and exit; proper sitting arrangement
ensuring adequate spacing; display of prohibited items and examination
instructions at prominent locations; deployment of adequate number of
internal security/guards to prevent entry of unauthorized persons; and
maintenance of a visitors' register and incident register. The institutions
shall ensure that the premises allotted for examinations are free from
obstructions and provide a controlled environment for supervision and
frisking as per Board norms.
• DIRECTIONS TO AUTHORITIES
33. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall ensure that the staff deputed for
examinations, including invigilators and supervisory staff, is duly
qualified, trained, and sensitized. Before examinations commence, a
brief mandatory orientation shall be conducted, emphasizing zero
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{31}
tolerance to malpractice, proper seizure and reporting protocols, and
duty to act without fear or favour. The Board shall ensure that the
Centre In-charge is specifically made responsible for compliance with
protocol and for immediate reporting of any irregularity.
• DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST THE RESPONSIBLE STAFF
34. Where invigilation staff is deputed by the authorities and the
conduct of the examination is under their control, and where
malpractice or irregularity occurs, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not
mechanically proceed against the institution merely because its
premises were used. The authorities shall hold a prompt, fair inquiry
identifying the persons responsible, including invigilators, supervisors,
Centre In-charge, and any other staff, and shall fix liability
proportionate to culpability. Where warranted, disciplinary action shall
be initiated against responsible staff, and appropriate adverse entries
may be made in service records, in accordance with law and service
rules, so that accountability is real and deterrent.
• CLOSURE ACTION OF EXAMINATION CENTRE BY AUTHORITIES
35. If any centre is proposed to be closed in future, Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 shall strictly adhere to the governing
standards/regulations, including issuance of a detailed show cause
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{32}
notice specifying the allegations and material relied upon; furnishing of
relevant documents to the concerned institution to the extent
permissible in law; granting reasonable time to respond; providing a
meaningful personal hearing before the competent committee; and
passing a reasoned order demonstrating application of mind and
proportionality. The decision shall be communicated within the
prescribed timelines so that students and administration have certainty
well before the commencement of examinations.
36. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall ensure uniformity and non-
discrimination in the application of standards across centres. If action is
taken against certain centres for comparable incidents, the Board shall
maintain records demonstrating rational basis for differentiation, so
that similarly situated centres are treated similarly. A transparent matrix
of action such as warning, enhanced vigilance, temporary restrictions,
or closure should be applied in proportion to the gravity and frequency
of incidents, rather than as an undifferentiated punitive response.
37. We clarify that if, in future, there is credible material
demonstrating mass copying, repeated incidents over successive
examinations, institutional connivance, obstruction to supervisory staff,
or persistent failure to implement safeguards despite warnings,
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall be at liberty to take stringent action,
6-26-WP (+14).odt
{33}
including closure, provided it is taken by the competent authority
following due procedure and by a reasoned order. The present
allowance of the petitions shall not be construed as dilution of the
mandate of fair examinations; rather it ensures that enforcement
remains lawful, targeted, and effective.
38. The respondent authorities are directed to circulate this order to
the institutions which have been granted examination centres for
Classes X and XII.
39. With the aforesaid directions, all the petitions stand allowed.
The impugned orders in each petition are quashed and set aside. Rule is
made absolute. No order as to costs.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane
