Satyanarayan Laxmanrao Laxman ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 394 Bom

                                        1                              wp 2504.16




                                                                          
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2504 OF 2016

              Satyanarayan S/o Laxmanrao @ Laxman 




                                                 
              Andelwar,
              Age : 20 Years, Occu. : Student,
              R/o. : Palaj, Taluka : Bhokar,
              District : Nanded                   ..    Petitioner




                                           
                       Versus
     1.       The State of Maharashtra,
              Through its Secretary,
                            
              Medical Education and Drugs Dept.,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

     2.       The Committee for Scrutiny and
      


              Verification of Tribe Claims,
              Through its Dy. Director (Research),
   



              Aurnagabad, Division Aurangabad

     3.       The Maharashtra University of Health 





              Sciences, Nasik, Dindori Road,
              Mhasrul, District : Nasik

     4.       The Government Medical College,
              Through its Registrar, Aurangabad            ..    Respondents





     Shri Arun H. Koralkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
     Shri P. S. Patil, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
     Shri Anandsing Bayas, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.

                               CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
                                        A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE : 07TH MARCH, 2016.

2 wp 2504.16

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J) :-

. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties taken up for final hearing.

3. Mr. Koralkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is admitted in the M. B. B. S. course from reserved category. The proceedings for validation in respect

of the tribe claim of the petitioner is pending with the

respondent/Committee, however, the respondent No. 3 has withheld the result of the petitioner on the ground that validity

is not submitted. Mr. Bayas, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 3 and submits that, in absence of the validity being submitted the respondent No. 3 has rightly withheld the

result.

4. Mr. Patil, the learned A. G. P. states that, the matter is

referred to the vigilance of the Committee.

5. Considering the fact that, the validation proceedings are

pending and the petitioner has already appeared for the second year M. B. B. S. course, we pass the following order.

6. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall not withhold the result of the petitioner of the examination only on the ground that validation proceedings are pending, so also, shall not refrain the

3 wp 2504.16

petitioner from prosecuting further studies only on the said ground. The respondent No. 2/Committee shall decide the

validation proceedings in respect of tribe claim of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of nine (9) months

from today.

Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

Sd/-

                              ig                                Sd/-
     [ A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. ]                [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
                            
     bsb/March 16