Bombay High Court
Diksha Vinayak Kogurwar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 13 July, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
1 1033.WP-8308-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 8308 / 2022
Diksha d/o Vinayak Kogurwar,
Age 26 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Madnapru, Tq. Mahur,
Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Medical Education and Drugs Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Aurangabad.
3. The Dean,
Topiwala National Medical College Mumbai,
BLY Nair Charitable Hospital Area,
Dr. A. L. Nair Road, Mumbai.
4. The Registrar,
Maharashtra University of Health,
Sciences, Dindori Road, Mhasrul/
Nashik, District-Nashik.
5. The Commissioner & Competent Authority,
Commissioner of Common Entrance Test Cell,
Government of Maharashtra,
8th Floor, New Excelsior Building,
A.K. Naik Marg, Fort, Mumbai. ...Respondents
___
Mr. S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. G. Sangale, AGP for respondent no.1 and 2/State
Mr. S. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.4
Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for respondent no.5
___
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2023 07:09:14 :::
2 1033.WP-8308-2022.doc
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 13 JULY, 2023.
FINAL ORDER [PER : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] :
. Heard both the sides for final disposal.
1. The petitioner is challenging judgment and order dated
13/07/2022 passed by the respondent no.2/Scrutiny Committee,
invalidating her caste claim for scheduled tribe 'Mannervarlu', which
is a common judgment in case of herself and her cousin brother.
2. The petitioner is relying upon the validity certificate of her real
brother-Rahul, father-Vinayak besides other blood relatives. The
genealogy, affidavit, report of vigilance enquiry and reply to the
same are placed on record.
3. Per-contra the learned AGP supports the impugned judgment
and order. It is pointed out that the Scrutiny Committee rightly held
that the petitioner failed to prove her claim on the basis of school
record of here relatives. There is no illegality in holding that the
validity certificates are not reliable being procured by suppression of
facts. It is further submitted that the affinity test was recorded
against her.
4. We notice that the relationship between the petitioner and the
validity holders is not disputed. Real brother of the petitioner,
Rahul, her father - Vinayak were issued with validity certificates.
Rituja Ramesh Kogurwar was also issued validity certificate in
pursuance of the order passed by the High Court on 03.08.2018 in
3 1033.WP-8308-2022.doc
Writ Petition No.8939/2018. Rituja happens to be close relatives of
the petitioner.
5. We find that the case is made out by the petitioner to accept
the validity certificates of the blood relatives. In view of the
judgment in case of Maharashtra Adavasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshak
Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2023(2)
Mh.L.J.785, we have to rely upon the validity certificate of father,
brother and other relatives.
6. We hold that the Scrutiny Committee committed serious error
in rejecting the caste claim. The same needs to be interfered with.
7. We therefore allow this petition partly by quashing and setting
aside the judgment and order dated 13/07/2022 passed by the
Scrutiny Committee and direct the Scrutiny Committee to issue
validity certificate of scheduled tribe 'Mannervarlu' within a period
of two weeks, subject to the outcome of the revocation/cancellation
proceedings of validity certificates of the close relatives of the
petitioner as proposed by the Scrutiny Committee.
8. The petitioner shall not claim any equity and shall cooperate
with the Scrutiny Committee.
9. With this, the writ petition is disposed of.
[SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
NAJEEB/..
