Pradip Bhimrao Rajput vs The Divisionla Caste Scrutiny ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6450 Bom

                                                        1                          wp4867.05.odt

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                                        
                              WRIT PETITION NO.4867/2015




                                                                
            Pradip s/o Bhimrao Rajput
            aged about 19 years, Occ. Student,
            r/o Chandur Biswa, Tahsil Nandura,
            District Buldana.                                    .....PETITIONER




                                                               
                                   ...V E R S U S...

     1.     The Divisional Caste Scrutiny




                                                
            Committee, Rathi Nagar, Amravati.

     2.
                             
            P. Wadhwani College of Pharmacy,
            Yavatmal, through its President.
                            
     3.     Director of Technical Education,
            Mumbai.

     4.     Amravati University, Amravati,
      

            through its Registrar.                               ...RESPONDENTS
   



     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
     Mr. N. S. Rao, A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 3.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





                     CORAM:-  B. R. GAVAI &    V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.

DATED :-

NOVEMBER 15, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V. M. Deshpande, J.)

1. Heard Mr. P. B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. N. S. Rao, learned A.G.P. for the State. Counsel for the

respondent nos. 2 and 4 chose to remain absent when the matter was

called out for final hearing.

2 wp4867.05.odt

2. In the present petition, originally prayer was for quashing

the order dated 06.06.2005 passed by respondent no.1 whereby the

claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta a Vimukta

Jati was disallowed. During the pendency of the present petition, the

petition was amended and the amended prayer clause is (d1) by

which only the protection of his education is claimed by the

petitioner.

3.

The petitioner claims that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta.

He was desirous of having admission in the respondent no.2-College

in the Pharmacy stream and accordingly he was admitted. The caste

certificate of the petitioner was referred by the principal of the

College whereat the petitioner was taking his education in the 12 th

standard to the respondent no.1 for its verification.

4. From the record, it appears that the claim of the petitioner

was rejected by the respondent no.1 vide order dated 24.02.2002

without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Feeling

aggrieved thereby, a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.966/2005

was filed before this Court by the petitioner and this Court set aside

the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide judgment dated

3 wp4867.05.odt

11.04.2005 and remanded the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny

Committee.

After having remanded the matter, the petitioner again

appeared before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Committee

vide the impugned order, rejected his claim.

5. Since the petitioner has restricted his claim only for the

protection of the education which he has undertaken on the basis of

the caste claim, this Court refrains itself from going into merits of the

matter. Insofar as the aspect of protection is concerned, the said

issue is no more res integra in view of the Larger Bench decision of

this Court in Arun Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others;

2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457.

6. The petitioner, who was admitted in the B. Farm. in the

respondent no.2 College in the year 2004 has already completed his

education in view of the interim order passed by this Court on

20.04.2006. Since the petitioner has already completed his

education, the said seat would not be available to any other person.

Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement

that after completion of his education, the petitioner is employed

4 wp4867.05.odt

private sector in the open category. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has invited our attention to the impugned order, which

does not speak about element of fraud on the part of the petitioner.

7. In that view of the matter, and more particularly in view

of the judgment in the case of Arun Sonwane (cited supra), we pass

the following order.

ig O R D E R

The petition is rejected insofar as challenge to the order of

respondent no.1 is concerned. However, the petition is allowed to

the extent that the studies undertaken by the petitioner for Pharmacy

course shall stand protected. Except this protection, we make it clear

that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any benefit available

to Vimukta Jati being Rajput Bhamta.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to

costs.

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




     kahale