CHETAN BHALERAO BORASEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. ITS PRINCIPAL SEC. URBAN DEVELOMENT DEPT AND ORS

                                                                1 of 17                      905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



                                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.3882 OF 2025

                                Chetan Bhalerao Borase, Age 35 years,
                                R/o.S.No.124, Shivaji Park Society,
                                Near Chintamani Ganesh Temple,
                                Walhekarwadi, Chinchwad, Pune-33.                                 Petitioner

                                              versus

                                1. The State of Maharashtra through
                                Principal Secretary, Urban Development Deptt;
                                Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                                2. The Director,
                                Directorate of Municipal Administration,
                                M.S Mumbai.
                                3. The Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation,
                                through Municipal Commissioner, Pimpri, Pune.
                                4. Gaurav Balu Darade, Sanitary Inspector,
                                5. Sneha Balaso Chandane, Sanitary Inspector,
                                6. Snehal Prakash Sukate, Sanitary Inspector,
                                7. Samadhan Kacharu Katad, Sanitary Inspector,
                                8. Snehal Abasaheb Sonawane, Sanitary Inspector,
                                9. Ganpati Aba Asdgar, Sanitary Inspector,
                                10. Girish Ravsaheb Koli, Sanitary Inspector,
                                11. Akshay Datttray Phadtare, Sanitary Inspector,
                                12. Santoshi Ahok Kadam, Sanitary Inspector,
                                13. Bailakwad Ashok Khanderao, Sanitary Inspector                 Respondents

                                                               _______
                                Ms.Pradnya Talekar i/byy Ms.Madhuri Ayyapan i/by Ms.Arushi Keniya for
                                Petitioner.
                                Mr.P.P.Kakade, Additional Govt.Pleader with Ms.Nisha Mehra, AGP, for
                                Respondents-State.
                                Mr.Kedar B.Dighe for Respondent no.3 PCMC.
                                                                   _______

MANISH
             Digitally signed
          by MANISH
          SURESHRAO
                                                           CORAM:         G. S. KULKARNI &
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE    Date: 2026.08.19
             10:06:31 +0530
                                                                          AARTI SATHE, JJ.

                                                           DATE:          6th August 2026



                                M.S.Thatte
                                             2 of 17                             905.WP.3882.2025.DOC




ORDER :

1.               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties heard

finally.

2.               This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

praying for the following substantive reliefs :

             “A. To quash the impugned list of candidates held to disqualified published by
             the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation on 30.08.2024 qua the petitioner
             (Exhibit__) by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
             direction, as the case may be;

             B. To quash the impugned decision of the Selection Committee of the
             respondent no.3 Corporation dated 13.1.2025 refusing to grant appointment to
             the petitioner pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government to consider
             the diplomas of one year course in sanitary inspector from the institutes other than
             those contained in GRs of 2023 and 2024 as one time measure, by issuing a writ
             of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be;

             C. To direct the respondent no.3 Corporation to appoint the petitioner as
             Sanitary Inspector pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.08.2022 issued by the
             Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, by issuing writ of
             mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be;

             D. To direct the respondent no.3 Corporation to keep one post of Sanitary
             Inspector vacant, pending hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition.”

3.               The primary contention of the Petitioner is that the list of candidates

held to be disqualified, which has been published by the Pimpri Chinchwad

Municipal Corporation (`PCMC’ for short) on 30 th August 2024, refusing to grant

appointment to the Petitioner, pursuant to the decision taken by the State

Government to not consider diploma holders having diploma of one year in the

Sanitary Inspector course from the institutes other than those contained in

Government Resolutions of 2023 and 2024, is illegal and arbitrary.

4.               It is Petitioner’s contention that there are 13 other candidates who are

arraigned as Respondents, who have obtained qualification of Diploma in Sanitary




M.S.Thatte
                                     3 of 17                      905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



Inspector course from certain other institutes, more particularly from the All India

Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay (`AIILSG’ for short), and they have

been held eligible for appointment in spite of the fact that the said AIILSG has not

received necessary approval, however, the Petitioner has been held ineligible only

on the ground that Marathwada Board of Technical Education Examinations

(hereinafter referred to as “the Marathwada Board”) from where the Petitioner has

got diploma certificate as Sanitary Inspector, does not have necessary approval.

5.             The necessary facts for determination of the dispute in the present

petition are as follows.

6.             The Respondent No.3-PCMC issued an advertisement bearing

No.184/2022 inviting applications for appointment to various posts including

Sanitary Inspector.      In all 13 posts of Sanitary Inspectors in Group-C were

advertised and the qualifications required for the post of Sanitary Inspector were as

follows:

             a. Degree in any branch from any recognized University;
             b. Must have qualified a Diploma in Sanitary Inspector course from
                any Government recognised Institute.
             c. Computer related qualifications from any approved Government
                institute.


7.             It is the Petitioner’s contention that even the PCMC (Recruitment and

Classification of Services) Rules, 2020 prescribed the aforesaid qualifications for

the post of Sanitary Inspector. As the Petitioner was eligible for the aforesaid post,

he applied for the said post in response to the advertisement dated 17 th August

2022. The Petitioner appeared for the examination held on 26 th May 2023 and



M.S.Thatte
                                   4 of 17                      905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



the results of the examination came to be declared on 7 th August 2023. The

Petitioner secured highest marks i.e. 172 marks among all the candidates who had

appeared for examination and secured rank one in the order of merit. On 25 th

August 2023, verification of documents of the Petitioner was held and the

Petitioner submitted all the relevant document.

8.           In the meantime, the Government of Maharashtra published a

Government Resolution (`GR’) dated 25th August 2023 for the first time granting

approval to 16 institutes to run the course of Health Sanitary Inspector Diploma

course of one year. It is the Petitioner’s contention that however, the said GR did

not clarify as to what would happen to all such institutes which were running the

said course until the issuance of said GR dated 25 th August 2023. On 15th

February 2024 the Government of Maharashtra issued another GR according

sanction to 59 institutes to run the Sanitary courses.

9.           On 20th February 2024, the Joint Director, Health Service (Fever,

Elephantiasis and Waterborne Diseases) issued a Circular of even date regarding

consideration of one year diploma course in sanitary inspector, and directed that

apart from the three Government ITIs, the institutes included in the GRs dated

25th August 2023 and 25th February 2023 and the 30 other institutes of AIILSG ,

the candidates who have pursued the course of sanitary inspector from any other

institutes, shall provide the relevant documents showing the affiliation of such

institutions to the Government. It is the contention of Petitioner that the Circular

dated 20th February 2024 made it clear that the Diploma course of Sanitary

Inspectors imparted by other institutes having recognition by any of the




M.S.Thatte
                                   5 of 17                       905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



Government Departments, which were not included in the aforesaid GRs, were

very much valid for the purposes of appointment.

10.          It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that on 2 nd November 2023,

the Respondent No.3-PCMC sought clarification from the Director, Marathwada

Board, Aurangabad as to whether the said Board was recognized by the

Government and whether the course of diploma in sanitary inspector was approved

by the Government. It is the Petitioner’s contention that since there was no

response from the Marathwada Board, the PCMC published the list of candidates

directing them to produce documents evidencing that the Diploma in Sanitary

Inspector course run by the institutes were approved by the Government. The

Petitioner submitted all the documents in pursuance of notice dated 13 th February

2024. On 19th April 2024, the Directorate of Technical Education, M.S, Mumbai

informed that only those technical courses conducted by the Marathwada Board

were held to be unauthorized which were found to be without the approval of the

Competent Authority under the All India Council for Technical Education Act,

2013 (for short ‘AICTE Act 2013’).

11.          On 7th June 2024 the Government of Maharashtra constituted a

committee for verifying the certificates of such candidates under the chairmanship

of Director, Health Services. The said Committee submitted its report to the

Government vide communication dated 16th August 2024. On 30 th August 2024

the PCMC published the final selection list and the wait list. On 10 th October 2024

the Hon’ble Chief Minister took a decision to grant appointment to the candidates

who have completed the Diploma course of Sanitary Inspector from the institutes




M.S.Thatte
                                    6 of 17                        905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



which have similar names as that of Government recognized institutes as a one-

time measure.

12.          On 13th January 2025, the Commissioner, General Administration

Department (GAD), PCMC constituted a Selection Committee. The said selection

committee by communication dated 22nd January 2025 decided to reject the claim

of the Petitioner on the ground that the institute from where the Petitioner had

qualified as Sanitary Inspector, i.e. Marathwada Board, was not an institute which

had received the necessary approval to conduct the said course by establishing

branches.

13.          It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the present petition has

been filed, and the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by Respondent

No.3-PCMC of rejecting the Petitioner’s appointment to the post of Sanitary

Inspector.

14.          Heard Ms.Pradnya Talekar along with Ms.Madhuri Ayyapan i/b

Ms.Arushi Keniya for Petitioner, Mr.P.P.Kakade, Additional Govt.Pleader with

Ms.Nisha Mehra, AGP, for Respondents-State and Mr. Kedar B.Dighe for

Respondent No.3 PCMC.

15.          At the outset learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submitted

that refusal of the PCMC to appoint the Petitioner as Sanitary Inspector, was on an

incorrect premise that all courses of Marathwada Board were unauthorized, and the

Marathwada Board was not recognized by Directorate of Technical Education. It

was her submission that the course of Sanitary Inspector was neither regulated by

Directorate of Technical Education nor was it held at any point of time




M.S.Thatte
                                  7 of 17                        905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



unauthorized, and in fact Marathwada Board was very much recognized by the

respective Departments at the time when the Petitioner qualified for the course in

April-2018. It was only post the Petitioner’s qualification that the Marathwada

Board was de-recognized and that too only in technical courses. It was also her

submission that no institutes were recognized by the Government for running a

one-year Diploma of Sanitary Inspector course and there were no regulatory bodies

to regulate the said course.    It was her vehement submission that other 13

candidates who had been selected, were given certification by the AIILSG.

According to the learned counsel for Petitioner, the said AIILSG was also not

recognized, or no approval had been granted to them and hence accepting the

candidates from the said institute and not accepting the Petitioner, was an arbitrary

exercise which the PCMC had undertaken. It is further her submission that at the

time when the advertisement was published, the condition regarding Diploma

course to be obtained from recognized/approved institutions, was never published

and hence to thereafter reject the Petitioner’s appointment on the ground that the

institute from where the Petitioner had undertaken the Diploma course of Sanitary

Inspector was not recognized/approved, would be an incorrect approach on the

part of the PCMC. She further submitted that in fact on 10 th October 2024, the

Department of Public Health of the State Government had issued a letter that

considering the candidates who had qualified one year Diploma course in Sanitary

Inspector from those institutes which were not recognized by the Government,

would be considered valid for the purposes of appointment and should be granted

appointment. She submitted that this was a one-time policy decision taken by the




M.S.Thatte
                                            8 of 17                            905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



Government in view of the discrepancy created at the time of publication of

advertisement and latter rejection of the Petitioner to the aforesaid post. She also

submitted that if the candidates from AIILSG could be considered for

appointment, which was also not approved institute, then the case of the present

Petitioner cannot be singled out for rejecting his appointment to the post of

Sanitary Inspector only on the basis that the Marathwada Board was not an

institute which was recognized/approved.

16.              Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.3-PCMC sought to

place reliance on the affidavit filed by Mr. Manoj Nandkumar Lonkar, Deputy

Commissioner of PCMC dated 29th May 2025 to contend that the petition

deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner had procured the

certificate of Diploma one year course in Sanitary Inspector from the Marathwada

Board which did not have a valid legal approval from the Competent Authority to

run the technical course. He also submitted that already proceedings have been

initiated by the office of Director of Technical Education, State of Maharashtra

against the said institute and the said institute is declared to be illegal and invalid

which was found to be conducting and operating courses without any valid

approval from competent authority. In view of the aforesaid he submitted that the

certificate which the Petitioner had procured, was not valid and hence his services

were rightly terminated. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit are reproduced

below:

             “3. I say that if the affidavit dated 29-04-2025 filed by State Government is
             perused and in specific paragraph no. 7 & 8 & Exhibit R-1 page no 385 to 390 are
             seen it is clear that the educational institution from where the petitioner has
             procured certificate of diploma (1 year) course in Sanitary Inspector is not valid




M.S.Thatte
                                              9 of 17                              905.WP.3882.2025.DOC


             and the said institution 'Marathwada Board of Technical Education Examinations'
             does not have any valid legal approval from competent authority, authorized to
             grant approval for imparting education for the relevant technical courses.

             4. I say that as per the well settled legal principles and rule of law every
             institution has to obtain permission / approval from AICTE (Competent authority
             for all technical courses) before any course is started and any student is enrolled for
             the said course.

             5. I say that in this particular case the 'Marathwada Board of Technical
             Education Examinations' which has issued a certificate to the petitioner and based
             on the said certificate the Petitioner had applied for the job in answering
             respondent corporation does not have any approval from AICTE.

             6. I say that already proceedings are initiated by office of Director of Technical
             Education State of Maharashtra against the said institution and the said institution
             is declared to be illegal and invalid bogus institution operating and conducting
             courses without any valid approval from competent authority.

             7. I say that appeal preferred from the said order is also decided against such
             illegal and bogus institutions. I say that in view of the affidavit filed by the State
             Government in the present matter, it is clearly evident that the statement on oath
             made by petitioner is contrary to facts and hence incorrect.

             8. I say that merely based on this wrong incorrect statement made on oath by the
             Petitioner the petition deserves to be dismissed.

             9. I say that the advertisement published in new paper by respondent
             corporation clearly mentions that the candidate applying for the job has to have
             obtained his qualification from State approved educational institution.”



17.               We have heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties and perused the

documents. Considering the controversy involved in the present petition, which

directly affected the employment of the candidates for the post of Sanitary

Inspector in Respondent No.3-PCMC and looking at the facts of the case, this

Court by orders dated 29th July 2026 and 3rd August 2026 directed PCMC to make

a statement as to whether any candidates similarly situated to the Petitioner, were

disqualified merely on the ground that they had been awarded Diploma certificate

by the Marathwada Board. This Court also directed that a responsible officer of the

State Government from the Ministry of Skill, Employment, Entrepreneurship and




M.S.Thatte
                                             10 of 17                               905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



Innovation of Government of Maharashtra who is entrusted with the

implementation of the Maharashtra State Board of Skill, Vocational Education and

Training Act, 2021 files an affidavit making a specific statement that AIILSG,

Mumbai with regard to the certificate as annexed to the reply affidavit of PCMC,

can be construed to be an institute authorized to issue Diploma certificate for the

course of Sanitary Inspector. The relevant order dated 29 th July 2026, and 3rd

August 2026 passed by this Bench are reproduced below:


             “Order dated 29th July 2026:

             1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time.

             2. In our opinion, it would be appropriate that an affidavit is filed by a responsible
             officer of the Municipal Corporation, concerned with the selection process to place
             on record the certificates in regard to Eligibility Criteria No.2 (Reference Item No.
             239 at page 148) along with the relevant supporting certificates. The Municipal
             Corporation shall also make a statement as to whether any candidates similarly
             situated to the petitioner were disqualified merely on the ground that they had
             been awarded a Diploma certificate by the Maharashtra Board of Technical
             Examinations. Let a copy of the affidavit be served on the advocate for the
             petitioner on or before the evening of 1 August 2026.

             3. List the matter first on board on 03 August 2026.

             Order dated 3rd August 2026 :

             1. Leave to amend the petition to implead thirteen candidates as party
             respondents. Amendment be carried out during the course of the day, and a copy
             of the amended petition be served on the added respondents.

             2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, more particularly, on
             the reply affidavit as filed on behalf of the PCMC. The contention urged on behalf
             of the petitioner is that thirteen candidates, who have obtained qualification as
             Diploma in Sanitary Inspector from certain institutes, more particularly, from the
             All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai, have also not been held
             eligible by applying the same standard applicable to the institute namely
             Marathwada Board of Technical Education.

             3. In our opinion, it would be appropriate that a responsible officer of the State
             Government from the Ministry of Skill, Employment, Entrepreneurship and
             Innovation of Government of Maharashtra, who is entrusted with the
             implementation of the Maharashtra State Board of Skill, Vocational Education and
             Training Act, 2021, files an affidavit making a specific statement that All India
             Institute of Local Self Government Mumbai, in regard to the certificate as annexed




M.S.Thatte
                                              11 of 17                               905.WP.3882.2025.DOC


             to the reply affidavit of the PCMC, can be construed to be an institute authorized
             to issue diploma certificate for course of Sanitary Inspector. Let such an affidavit be
             placed on record on the adjourned date of hearing and a copy of the same be
             furnished to the learned Advocate for the petitioner well in advance.

             4. As we have substantially heard learned Counsel for the parties, stand over to 5
             August 2026.”


18.               In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the State Government has filed

affidavit-in-reply of one Mr. Mahesh Shaligram Jadhav, Secretary, Maharashtra

Board of Skill, Vocational Education and Training specifically stating that Urban

Development and Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra vide

Government Resolution dated 15th June 1965 has approved certificate issued by

AIILSG, Bombay for recruitment as Sanitary Inspector. However, AIILSG has

established multiple institutes at Mumbai Suburban, Thane, Pune, Kolhapur,

Solapur, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Nanded without any government

approval and in respect of the aforesaid branches, show cause notice has been

issued to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them as per

provisions of Maharashtra Act No.XX of 2013 being The Maharashtra

Unauthorized Institutions and Unauthorized Courses of Study in Agriculture,

Animal and Fishery Sciences, Health Sciences, Higher, Technical and Vocational

Education (Prohibition) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act’). A

hearing in that respect has also been held and only recently AIILSG has submitted

application for approval of their centers established at Mumbai Suburban, Thane,

Pune, Kolhapur, Solapur, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Nanded. The relevant

paragraphs of the aforesaid affidavit are reproduced below:

             “2. I say that, vide Order dated 03.08.2026, this Hon'ble Court in the caption
             Petition has directed the Ministry of Skill, Employment, Entrepreneurship and




M.S.Thatte
                                            12 of 17                             905.WP.3882.2025.DOC


             Innovation of Government Department, to file Affidavit in Reply making specific
             statement that All India Institute of Local Self Government Mumbai, which is
             annexed to the Reply of PCMC can be construed to be an institute authorized to
             issue diploma certificate for course of Sanitary Inspector. To that effect, it is
             submitted that the All India Institute of Local Self Government Mumbai, has
             Recognition Certificate issued by the Government vide Government Resolution
             dt. 15/06/1965. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit R-1 is a copy of the
             Government Resolution dt. 15/06/1965.

             3. I say and submit that Urban Development and Public Health Department,
             Government of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated 15.06.1965 has
             approved certificate issued by All India Institute of Local Self Government,
             Bombay for recruitment as Sanitary Inspector. However, All India Institute of
             Local Self Government has established multiple institutes at Mumbai Suburban,
             Thane, Pune, Kolhapur, Solapur, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Nanded without
             any Government approval. The State Skill Board vide letter dated 13.08.2024 had
             issued show cause to All India Institute of Local Self Government as to why action
             should not be initiated against them as per provisions of Maharashtra Act No. XX
             of 2013. A hearing in the said case was taken by Director, Directorate of
             Vocational Education and Training who is declared as competent authority for
             implementation of Maharashtra Act No. XX of 2013. All India Institute of Local
             Self Government has now submitted their application for seeking approval for
             their centers established at Mumbai Suburban, Thane, Pune, Kolhapur, Solapur,
             Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Nanded location.”

19.              Considering the categorical submission made on behalf of the

Respondent-State in their affidavit regarding status of the approval of AIILSG, we

find much substance in the argument as advanced on behalf of the learned counsel

for the Petitioner that 13 candidates who have obtained their diploma certification

from         AIILSG       and     more     particularly     its   branches,     which      are     not

approved/recognized cannot be given employment by the PCMC as opposed to the

present Petitioner. We are of the view that in fact both, the Petitioner and 13

candidates, who have obtained their diploma certificates from AIILSG and the

Marathwada Board respectively, cannot be employed by Respondent No.3-PCMC

as the institutes from where they obtained their certificates, are not approved and

same is in clear contravention of the provisions of the said Act.

20.              It would be pertinent to reproduce the provisions of Section 3(1) and

(2) of the said Act, which clearly mandates that no person shall establish or cause to


M.S.Thatte
                                           13 of 17                           905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



be established or conduct, an Educational Institution, without prior approval of the

appropriate authority. Sub-section 2 of Section 3 mandates that no person or an

Educational Institution shall introduce or cause to be introduced or conduct a

programme or course of study in Agriculture, Animal and Fishery Sciences, Health

Sciences, Higher Education, Technical Education or Vocational Education,

without prior approval of the appropriate authority. Section 3(1) and (2) of the of

the said Act are reproduced below :

             Section 3 – Prohibition of establishment of unauthorized institutions and
             introducing unauthorized courses :-

             3. (1) No person shall establish or cause to be established or conduct, an
             Educational Institution, without prior approval of the appropriate authority.

             (2) No person or an Educational Institution shall introduce or cause to be
             introduced or conduct a programme or course of study in Agriculture, Animal and
             Fishery Sciences, Health Sciences, Higher Education, Technical Education or
             Vocational Education, without prior approval of the appropriate authority.


21.              It is therefore our view that considering the clear provisions of Section 3

of the said Act, it is clear that no educational institution can be set up without prior

approval of the Competent Authority and also cannot conduct courses without

prior approval of the Competent Authority. We are of the firm view that the

certificates issued by the AIILSG, Mumbai and the Marathwada Board, both have

fallen foul of the aforesaid provisions and neither the Petitioner nor the 13

candidates who have been employed by PCMC, can be employed on the basis of

aforesaid certificates.

22.              Our view finds support in the decision of Supreme Court in C.B.S.E.

and another Vs. P.Sunil Kumar and others 1, wherein the Supreme Court has


1(1998)5-SCC-377



M.S.Thatte
                                             14 of 17                              905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



categorically deprecated the practice of allowing the students to appear

provisionally in the examinations of the Board or the University and then

ultimately regularising the same by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. The

Supreme Court in this case was concerned with the disputes regarding institutions

in which students had pursued studies which had not yet received affiliation from

the Board of Secondary Education and in the facts of the case, the Supreme Court

set aside the order of the High Court and held that the Court was conscious of the

fact that their order setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court would

cause injustice to the students, but to permit students of an unaffiliated institution

to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court

and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have

undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law. It was observed

that it will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on

misplaced sympathy in favour of the students. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid

decision are reproduced below :-


             “3. There is no dispute that the institutions in which these students had pursued
             their studies have not yet received any affiliation from the Central Board of
             Secondary Education, who is the appellant in these appeals. Under the bye-laws of
             the Board, only regular students of affiliated schools with the Board are entitled to
             appear in the Secondary School Examination and the Senior Secondary School
             Examination conducted by the Board. Since the institutions in which the
             respondent-students have prosecuted their studies are admittedly not affiliated to
             the Board but the students have been allowed to appear at the examination
             pursuant to the interim direction of the Court, which is in contravention of the
             rules and regulations of the Board, the question that arises for consideration is:
             Whether the High Court was justified in issuing these impugned directions? This
             question no longer remains res integra. This Court in several cases deprecated the
             practice of allowing students to appear provisionally in the examinations of the
             Board or the University and then ultimately regularising the same by taking a
             sympathetic view of the matter. In the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational
             Society v. Govt. of A.P.I this Court held that the Court will not be justified in
             issuing direction to the University to protect the interest of the students who had




M.S.Thatte
                                             15 of 17                               905.WP.3882.2025.DOC


             been admitted to the medical college in clear transgression of the provisions of the
             University Act and the regulations of the University. It was also observed that the
             Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it
             owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would
             be destructive of the rule of law. In the case of the State of T.N. v. St. Joseph
             Teachers' Training Institute this Court held that the direction of admitting
             students of unauthorised educational institutions and permitting them to appear at
             the examination has been looked on with disfavour and the students of
             unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination
             conducted by the Education Department of the Government cannot be allowed to
             sit at the examination and the High Court committed an error in granting
             permission to such students to appear at the public examination. All these cases
             were again considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of the State
             of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale? and it was held that the students of
             unrecognised and unauthorised educational institutions could not have been
             permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear in
             examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. The Court
             ultimately struck down the direction issued by the High Court. In yet another
             case, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansalf another three-Judge
             Bench of this Court interfered with the interim order passed by the High Court to
             allow students to undergo internship course even without passing the MBBS
             examination. The Court observed: (SCC p. 403, para 7)

                     "We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory
                     remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced,
                     does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep
                     coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-
                     conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing
                     judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private
                     benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or
                     whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life.
                     Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of
                     the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into
                     account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided
                     later when serious complications might ensue from the interim
                     order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently
                     moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate
                     assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders
                     cannot be allowed to stand. The courts should not embarrass
                     academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions."

             4. On the admitted position and in view of the law laid down by this Court
             referred to above, Mr Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
             appellants, contended that the impugned direction of the High Court is wholly
             erroneous and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel appearing for the students
             in different appeals did not dispute the position that the schools from where their
             clients have perused their studies are not yet affiliated to the Central Board of
             Secondary Education. But they mainly contended that the students having been
             permitted to appear at the examination and they having been successful and
             certificates having been issued in their favour, it would work out great injustice, if
             the impugned directions of the High Court are set aside at this length of time. In
             support of this contention they placed reliance on a recent decision of this Court in
             the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulatif. In the
             aforesaid case, this Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to



M.S.Thatte
                                             16 of 17                              905.WP.3882.2025.DOC


             issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a
             precedent in future but did not interfere with the ultimate direction of the High
             Court on the ground that fond hopes have been raised in the minds of the students
             and therefore it would be inappropriate to interfere under Article 136 of the
             Constitution. We are unable to apply the reasoning given in the aforesaid case,
             inasmuch as there is no iota of material placed before us to indicate that the
             Central Board of Secondary Education, the appellants herein, either directly or
             indirectly had held out to the students at any point of time that the institutions in
             which they are prosecuting their studies have been affiliated or are going to be
             affiliated in the near future. We are conscious of the fact that our order setting
             aside the impugned directions of the High Court would cause injustice to these
             students. But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the
             examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court and then to
             compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken
             examination would tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be
             justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in
             favour of the students. In view of the aforesaid premises, we set aside the
             impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court as well as the
             interim orders issued by the Single Judge in several petitions out of which the writ
             appeals arose and the writ petitions filed by the respondents stand dismissed.
             These appeals are allowed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to
             costs.”
                                                                       (Emphasis supplied)

23.               Learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.3-PCMC has also made a

statement that considering that the 13 other candidates who have been employed

and have certificates from AIILSG which is not an approved and recognized

institute, their services would be terminated and further notices would be issued to

them to take appropriate action in respect of their employment. Considering the

above categorical submission by learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.3-

PCMC and the facts and law, we are also of the view that considering that even the

Marathwada Board does not have the requisite approval, the Petitioner would not

stand a chance to gain employment in Respondent No.3-PCMC, on the strength of

the certificate obtained from the Marathwada Board, which is not an

approved/recognized institution by the Competent Authority.

24.               We are, therefore, inclined to dismiss the present petition in view of the

following order:



M.S.Thatte
                                      17 of 17                     905.WP.3882.2025.DOC



                                          ORDER

(i)             The decision of Selection Committee of Respondent No.3-PCMC

dated 13th January 2025 refusing to grant appointment to the Petitioner is upheld;

(ii)            Consequently, as fairly submitted on behalf of the PCMC, the other 13

appointments who are similarly placed as the Petitioner are not being recognized

by the PCMC which are also being held to be illegal. Respondent No.3-PCMC is at

liberty to take appropriate steps in respect of termination of services of Respondent

Nos.4 to 13 as the law would mandate;

(iii)           The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.




             (AARTI SATHE, J.)                       (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




M.S.Thatte