Aniket Dilip Jadhav Thr Father And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8019 Bom

                                                                          502-ASWP-10036-2023.DOC




                                                                                                    Amol



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 10036 OF 2023


                       Aniket Dilip Jadhav                                                  ...Petitioner
                              Versus
                       State of Maharashtra & Ors                                       ...Respondents


                       Mr RK Mendadkar, for the Petitioner.
                       Mrs AA Purav, AGP, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2-State.
                       Mr Yashodeep Deshmukh, with Vaidehi Pradeep, for Respondent No. 3.


                                                     CORAM     G.S. Patel &
                                                               Neela Gokhale, JJ.

                                                     DATED:    8th August 2023
                       PC:-

1. We are thoroughly dissatisfied with, first, the explanation for Digitally the Petitioner not approaching the Scheduled Tribe Certificate signed by AMOL PREMNATH AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV JADHAV Date:

Scrutiny Committee in time and, second, in seeking an out-of-turn 2023.08.09 10:02:01 +0530 priority listing claiming urgency on account of having obtained admission to an undergraduate medical course.

2. Mr Mendadkar attempts an explanation that the documents of the Petitioner had to be routed through the college and that there was some misunderstanding. The wrong committee was approached and this process according to the Petitioner, went on from August 2022 to late March 2023. That story is hardly credible. That the

8th August 2023

502-ASWP-10036-2023.DOC

Petitioner knew he was applying for medical admission is undeniable. The Petitioner equally knew that if the Petitioner was seeking admission against a reserved category, the Petitioner would need a validity certificate. There are judgments of this Court affirmed by the Supreme Court which say that applications need to be made at least six months in advance.

3. Mr Deshmukh for the CET Cell points out that it is incomprehensible that any college could have granted admission without a validity certificate and on an undertaking. That is not only contrary to an order of the Supreme Court of 6th September 2017 in a group of matters that came up from this Court at its Aurangabad Bench but is also contrary to a State Government Resolution dated 10th December 2019.

4. We decline to grant ad-interim relief. The Petitioner is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law.

5. Since Mr Mendadkar says that the tribe claim is pending since March 2023 and has not been decided, we only request the 2nd Respondent committee to dispose of the matter at its earliest convenience, subject to the listing of other priority matters.

6. List the matter on 6th November 2023.

 (Neela Gokhale, J)                                        (G. S. Patel, J)





                               8th August 2023