Yogeshwari D/O Chhagan Gaikwad ... vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1722 Bom

    WP 2245/14                                        1                          Judgment


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                     
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                             
                         WRIT PETITION No. 2245/2014

    Yogeshwari d/o Chhagan Gaikwad,
    aged 19 years, Occupation:Student,




                                                            
    R/o Amgaon Khd., Post: Ghanod,
    Tq. Sakoli, Distt. Bhandara,
    through her natural guardian father,
    Chhagan s/o Nitaram Gaikwad,
    age:54 years, Occ: Service.                                              PETITIONER




                                              
                                       .....VERSUS.....


    1.
                              
            Scheduled Tribe Certificate
            Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur,
                             
            Through its Chairman,
            Committee for Scheduled Tribe Claims,
            Office at First Floor, Adiwasi Vikas
            Bhawan, in front of R.T.O. Office,
            Giripeth, Nagpur.
      


    2.      State of Maharashtra,
            through its Secretary,
   



            Tribal Development Department,
            Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

    3.      Director of Technical Education,





            3, Mahapalika Marg, Mantralaya,
            Mumbai-32.

    4.      Principal, S.S.P.M's College of
            Engineering.                               (DISMISSED)





    5.       The Registrar,
             Mumbai University, Mumbai,
             Fort, Mumbai-01.                                                 RESPONDENTS


                           Shri P.P. Dhok, counsel for the petitioner.
         Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
                      Petition is dismissed against the respondent no.4.
                                 None for the respondent no.5.




     ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2016                            ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:11:23 :::
     WP 2245/14                                         2                          Judgment


                                        CORAM   :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND




                                                                                      
                                                 V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.        

                                        DATE      : 21   
                                                       ST
                                                                    APRIL ,        2016.




                                                              

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel

for the parties.

2.

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the

respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the

petitioner within a time frame. The petitioner also seeks the protection of

her education in the Bachelor of Engineering course in the respondent

no.4-College till her caste claim is decided.

3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is

admitted in the respondent no.4-College on a seat earmarked for the

Scheduled Tribes and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the

respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee for verification. It is stated that the

respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee has not decided the caste claim of

the petitioner and the College and the University have threatened to

cancel the admission of the petitioner in the absence of the Caste Validity

Certificate.

WP 2245/14 3 Judgment

4. Shri Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee, states on

instructions that the caste claim of the petitioner is pending before the

respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee and the same would be decided

within a period of one year.

5. In view of the statement made by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader, we allow the writ petition. The respondent no.1-

Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner

within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the petitioner

before the respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner

undertakes to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 09.05.2016.

Since the petitioner was not at fault in not producing the Caste Validity

Certificate, the education of the petitioner is protected till her caste claim

is decided. This would mean that the College and the University should

permit the petitioner to attend the classes, appear at the examination and

the results of the petitioner should be declared, if there is no other

impediment in doing so.

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

                   JUDGE                                             JUDGE

    APTE