Bombay High Court
Rajendra Gulabsing Jadhav vs The Nisargadeep Shikshan Prasarak ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
901ca4692-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4692 OF 2025
IN WP/686/2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 686 OF 2025
The Nisargadeep Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Through Its Secretary And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
...
Mr. S. V. Jadhavar h/for Mr. Salgare Vitthal G., Advocate for the
Applicant/petitioners
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents State
Mr. Umesh Mote, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Writ Petition
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 678 OF 2025
IN WP/686/2025
Rajendra Gulabsing Jadhav
VERSUS
The Nisargadeep Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Through Its Secretary And Ors
...
Mr. V. D. Salunke h/for Mr. Rodge Krishna Pratap, Advocate for
Applicant
.....
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 4th July, 2025 P. C. : . When these applications and the petition are called out for
hearing, the learned AGP has tendered an affidavit in reply with certain documents. The same is taken on record.
Page 1 of 4
901ca4692-25
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP and the learned counsel for the intervenor applicant, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner can be satisfied, if the Education Officer promptly undertakes an inspection and visits the premises where the subject school has been shifted on the basis of a post facto sanction granted by the State.
3. It is a matter of record that prior to shifting, the school had recognition under Rule 3.1 of the Secondary School Code, 2015 read with Appendix II but, after shifting to the new premises, the question as to whether the petitioner satisfies the requirements is yet to be determined.
4. The learned AGP appears to be justified in contending that although the post facto sanction has led to shifting of the school to the new premises, the Education Officer would be entitled to examine, as to whether the requirements specified in Appendix II read with Rule 3.1 of the Secondary School Code are satisfied at the new premises.
5. The communications exchanged between the petitioner and the Education Officer indicate that as far back as on 27.12.2024, the petitioner had sent a letter to the Eduction Officer submitting certain documents purportedly satisfying the issues raised by the Education Page 2 of 4 901ca4692-25 Officer in a letter dated 24.12.2024. Subsequently, on 18.01.2025, the petitioner had again approached the Education Officer requesting for recognition under Rule 3.1 of the Secondary School Code which the School already had in respect of the earlier premises. It appears that thereafter, nothing has been done by the Education Officer.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor tendered certain documents of June, 2025, being communications addressed by the Tahsildar to the Deputy Director of Education and the Education Officer allegedly indicating the glaring deficiencies in the new premises. We fail to understand what business the Tahsildar had in issuing such communications, particularly, because the said communications do not indicate any direction by either the Deputy Director of Education or the Education Officer to undertake such a roving and fishing enquiry.
7. It would be appropriate that, in these circumstances, the respondent Education Officer immediately undertakes the exercise of inspecting the new premises and reports to this Court as regards current state of affairs concerning the infrastructure and the other aspects as specified in Appendix II read with Rule 3.1 of the Secondary School Code.
Page 3 of 4
901ca4692-25
8. The respondent Education officer shall carry out the aforesaid exercise within one week from today and submit a report to this Court through the learned AGP on the next date of listing. Copy of the said report shall be furnished to the petitioner in advance.
9. List the petition for further consideration on 14.07.2025, first on board.
10. The intervenor applicant is permitted to file an additional affidavit in the intervention application alongwith documents within one week.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( MANISH PITALE, J. )
JPChavan
Page 4 of 4