Bombay High Court
Shivani D/O Gajanan Ingle vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 22 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
2211WP6263.16-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6263 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Shivani D/o Gajanan Ingle, aged about 20
yrs, occ. Student, R/o. Rokadiya Nagar,
Shegaon, Distt. Buldhana.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
ig 2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Irvin Chowk, Amravati,
through its Chairman.
3) The Directorate of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State-3, Mahapalika Marg,
Mumbai-400001.
4) The Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, Sant Gadge
Baba Amravati University, Amravati.
5) The Principal, Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj
College of Engineering, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana, PIN : 444203 (M.S.)
6) The Project Officer (Tribal), Integrated
Tribal Development Project, Akola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms P. D. Rane, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.G. Tiwari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6.
Mrs.M.P.Munshi, counsel for the respondent No.4.
Mr. A.R.Patil, counsel for the respondent No.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 22.11.2016
2211WP6263.16-Judgment 2/3
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition
is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction
against the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the
petitioner within a time frame. The petitioner seeks a direction against
the College and the University to protect the education of the petitioner
till her caste claim is decided.
3) The petitioner was admitted on a seat earmarked for the
Thakur scheduled tribe in the respondent No.5-Engineering College.
The petitioner's caste claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for
verification. According to the petitioner, though the caste claim of the
petitioner is still pending verification, the College and the University are
threatening to cancel the admission of the petitioner and are not issuing
the mark-sheet of the 4th semester examination to the petitioner.
4) Mrs.Tiwari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, states on instructions that the
caste claim of the petitioner is pending before the Scrutiny Committee
and the Scrutiny Committee would decide the same as early as possible.
5) Since the caste claim of the petitioner is still pending, the
College and the University cannot insist on the production of the caste
2211WP6263.16-Judgment 3/3
validity certificate. In the circumstances of the case, the education of the
petitioner needs to be protected till her caste claim is decided.
6) Hence, we partly allow the writ petition and direct the
Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within
eighteen months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before
the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the
Scrutiny Committee on 07/12/2016. 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 petitioner should be admitted to the classes, permitted to
attend the classes, appear at the examinations and the results of the
petitioner should be declared, if there is no other impediment in doing
so. The petitioner is required to pay the full fees that are liable to be
paid by the regular students to the respondent No.5-College till her
caste claim is decided. Needless to state that the College would be
required to refund the fees to the petitioner in case the caste claim of
the petitioner is validated and get the reimbursement of the same from
the government. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
