Bombay High Court
Chetan S/O Kawadu Shrirame vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 20 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2007WP1112.15-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1112 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Chetan S/o Kawadu Shrirame, aged 19
years, Occupation : Student, R/o Sant
Ravidas Chow, Vidyanagar, Bramhapuri,
Tahsil Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Tribal Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2) Director of Technical Education
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
3) The Principal, Sinhagad College of
Engineering, 44/1, Wadgaon (Budruk),
Pune-411 041.
4) The Registrar, Savitribai Fule Pune
University, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 041.
5) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli, Through its
Chairman, Committee for Scheduled Tribe
Claims, Office at Complex Area, Near Zilla
Parishad Sankul, Gadchiroli, Tq. And Distt.
Gadchiroli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. P. Dhok, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.Mrunal Naik, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 20.07.2017
2007WP1112.15-Judgment 2/3
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
The only prayer made by the petitioner in the instant
petition is for a direction against the respondent No.5-scrutiny
committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a time
frame. The petitioner has also sought the protection of his education,
till his caste claim is decided.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner
has submitted his caste claim to the respondent No.5-scrutiny
committee for verification in the year 2013, the same is not decided, till
date. It is stated that the college and the university may threaten to
cancel the admission of the petitioner if the petitioner fails to produce
the caste validity certificate.
3. Mrs. Naik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, states on instructions that
the caste claim of the petitioner is pending and the same would be
decided within one year. It is stated that due to the heavy pendency of
matters before the scrutiny committee, the caste claim of the petitioner
could not be decided, till date.
2007WP1112.15-Judgment 3/3
4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it
would be necessary to dispose of the writ petition by issuing a direction
to the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner
within one year and a direction against the college and the university,
not to take any adverse action against the petitioner, till his caste claim
is decided.
5. Hence, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to
the respondent No.5-scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the
petitioner within one year. Till the caste claim of the petitioner is
decided, the education of the petitioner would remain protected. This
would mean that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 should permit the
petitioner to pursue his education, to appear at the examination and the
results of the petitioner should be declared, till his caste claim is
decided. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
