Bombay High Court
Surykant Kailash Barik vs Divisional Caste Certificate ... on 28 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1179 of 2016
Petitioner : Suryakant Kailash Barik, aged about 18 years,
Student, resident of Old Nildoh, MIDC Hingna
Road, Nagpur-440016
igversus
Respondents : 1) Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee
No. 3, Nagpur Division, Administrative Building
No. 2, through Chairman, Adivasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, nagpur
2) The Director of Technical Education, MS,
3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai-40001
3) G. H. Raisoni College of Engineering,
through its Principal, Dingdoh Hills, CRPF
Gate No. 3, Nagpur 440016
Shri Ujwal Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner
Shri Nitin Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 & 2
Respondent no. 3 served
Coram : Smt Vasanti A. Naik And
V. M. Deshpande, JJ
Dated : 28th April 2016
Oral Judgment (Per Smt Vasanti A. Naik, J)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondent no. 1-Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim within a time-
frame. The petitioner seeks the protection of his education till his caste
claim is decided.
It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the Scrutiny
Committee had not decided the caste claim of the petitioner though it was
referred to it on 13.11.2015. It is stated that the University or the College
may cancel the admission of the petitioner in absence of the caste validity
certificate.
Shri Nitin Rode, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
states, on instructions, that the petitioner is not cooperating with the
Committee members and though the petitioner was asked to remain present
on a couple of occasions before the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has
failed to appear. It is stated that if the petitioner appears before the
Committee and cooperates with the same, the Scrutiny Committee would
decide the caste claim, as early as possible.
Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner would appear before the Scrutiny Committee as and when
directed. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed.
In view of the statement made by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader about the pendency of the caste claim of the petitioner,
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
month. The petitioner undertakes appear before the Committee on 23 rd May
2016. The education of the petitioner is protected till his caste claim is
decided.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
V. M. DESHPANDE, J SMT VASANTI A. NAIK, J
joshi
