AAYAT TASSAWAR SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2021-9-293
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 14,2021

Aayat Tassawar Shaikh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks an order and direction against the respondent no. 6-schools to admit the petitioner to the ageappropriate class of its school.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the allotment letter issued by the Education Officer addressed to the respondent no. 6- schools to admit the petitioner in the same school and other correspondence annexed to the petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel that though the petitioner wanted to produce all the documents for verification, since due to the pandemic, no committee was available there for verification, all the documents could not be verified. The address mentioned in the Aadhar card and in the application form are different and the reason is that in the Aadhar card petitioner has given permanent address whereas in the application form the petitioner has mentioned the current address of the petitioner. She submits that the leave and licence agreement could not be produced by the petitioner because of various reasons. Petitioner has already made grievances against the respondent no. 6 for not granting admission despite the letter in that regard issued by the Education Officer. The complaints filed by the petitioner are pending before three different authorities. Our attention is invited to the last complaint made by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Director (School Education) Maharashtra State, Pune on 9th July 2021. Learned counsel states that the said complaint is also still pending.
(3.)Mr.Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 on the other hand would submit that the committee was all the time available for verifying the documents. There was obvious discrepancy in the address of the petitioner mentioned in the Aadhar Card and in the application form. He submits that the petitioner admittedly could not produce the leave and licence agreement duly stamped. In support of his submissions he invited our attention to the letter dated 17th October 2020 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent no. 6-school. He submits that since the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement, respondent no.-6 could not grant admission to the petitioner though letter was addressed by the Education Officer invoking Section 12(1)(c) of The Right Of Children To Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. He lastly submits that the State Government thereafter referred another student for granting admission under the same provision. Respondent No. 6 has already granted admission to the said student. He submits that 23 seats allocated under Section 12(1)(c) of The Right Of Children To Free snd Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are already filled up for the academic year 2020-21 and no seats are now available. The statements made by Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 are accepted.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.