LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-269

BRIJMOHAN DHIRAJPRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On April 07, 2022
Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks order and direction against the State of Maharashtra to initiate Administrative action, including recovering the salary paid to those appointed as against inadmissible posts visa-vis criminal action on the strength of the report of the Deputy Director of Education, against the fraudulent wing of officers of the Education Department, the private management and its Head Teachers directly responsible for creating forged and fraudulent student database and fix the responsibility and to submit the periodical and progress report in the matter of initiating the administrative vis-a-vis criminal prosecution against the fraudulent wing of officers of Education Department and the private management and its Head Teachers.

(2.) The petitioner has vehemently urged in this petition that, on the record of the State Government large number of students are alleged to have been admitted in various schools granted aid by the State Government and in the ratio prescribed, large number of teachers and other staff are appointed by such schools granted aid by the State Government. It is the case of the petitioner that, numbers of students alleged to have been admitted by various schools are inflated by large number of such schools in connivance with some of the officers of the State Government who are empowered to grant sanction for grant-in-aid and other facilities to these schools for imparting education to these students. He submits that, since the number of students are fraudulently inflated, crores of rupees of public money is diverted by such fraudulent means by the State Government under the guise of providing grant-in-aid and for providing various other facilities on such students who are in fact not admitted in those schools.

(3.) The petitioner has made various suggestions in the Public Interest Litigation and also across the Bar.