Bhaiyalal S/O Suklal Muzalda vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 6309 Bom
Judgement Date : 24 October, 2016

Bombay High Court
Bhaiyalal S/O Suklal Muzalda vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 24 October, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
                                           1                      WP5554-16.odt         




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                       
                             Writ Petition No.5554/2016

                                                  ...




                                                      
    Bhaiyalal s/o Suklal Muzalda,
    Aged about 28 years,
    Occupation: Student,




                                               
    R/o At Chitri, Post Harisal,
    Tq. Dharni, Dist. Amravati.
                              ig                      ..             PETITIONER


                                   .. Versus ..
                            
    1. State of Maharashtra through its
       Secretary, Tribal Welfare
       Department, Mantralaya,
       Mumbai - 400 032.
      


    2. Dean, Government Medical College,
   



       Nagpur.

    3. Maharashtra University of Health
       Sciences, Dindori Road, Mhasrool,





       Nashik through its Registrar.     ..                       RESPONDENTS


    Mr. K.K. Nalamwar, Advocate for Petitioner.
    Mr. A.M. Balpande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.





    Mr. K.S. Malokar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

                                   ....


                  CORAM :               B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.
                  DATED :               October 24, 2016.




    ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016                       ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:48:00 :::
                                          2                       WP5554-16.odt         


    ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J. )




                                                                              

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner has prayed for direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to declare the result of the petitioner of 3rd Year M.B.B.S. examination held in May-June, 2012.

3. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Bhilala, Scheduled Tribe. While he was studying in 12th standard, his claim to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee. After he passed his 12th standard examination, on the basis of the petitioner's undertaking, he was admitted in M.B.B.S. course . However, the petitioner's claim of belonging to Bhilala Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected on 24.04.2009. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2830/2009. The same was also rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of special leave petition. The said S.L.P. is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:48:00 :::

3 WP5554-16.odt

4. However, during the pendency of the said S.L.P., the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to declare the result of the petitioner.

The petitioner has also filed an affidavit stating therein that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457, the petitioner is not pressing his claim with regard to validity of his claim but restricting his claim only for protection of the education that he has almost completed.

5. The petitioner has almost completed his MBBS course. Even if it is held that the petitioner is not belonging to Bhilala Scheduled Tribe, nobody else can be benefitted by the seat to which the petitioner has been admitted. The petitioner has also given an undertaking that he would withdraw the S.L.P. filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The education undertaken by the petitioner is protected. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to declare the result of the petitioner of 3rd year M.B.B.S. examination and issue the original mark-sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner is further permitted to complete the M.B.B.S course and appear ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:48:00 ::: 4 WP5554-16.odt for the examinations which are yet to be completed by him.

Needless to state that after completion of all the examinations and upon the petitioner being found successful in the said examinations, the necessary certificates and degree shall be issued to him. Needless to state that hereinafter the petitioner shall not claim any of the benefits of he belonging to Bhilala Scheduled Tribe.

7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order order as to costs.

         (V.M. Deshpande, J. )               (B.R. Gavai, J.)
   



                                        ...





    halwai/p.s.





    ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016              ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:48:00 :::