Bombay High Court
Dhanashri D/O Anil Shinde vs The State Of Maha., Thr. ... on 10 November, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Urmila Sachin Phalke
2023:BHC-NAG:16500-DB
32-B.wp.6690.2022.judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6690 OF 2022
Dhanashri D/o Anil Shinde,
Aged about 20 Yrs,
Occ. Education, R/o. Borgaon Meghe,
Post Wardha, Tah. and Dist. Wardha. ..... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra through
its the Directorate Director of
Medical Education and Research,
Government Dental College and Hospital
Building St George's Hospital Compound,
Mumbai -01.
2) The Admissions Regulating Authority,
through its Chairman, State of Maharashtra,
9th Floor New Excelsior Building A. K. Nayak
Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 01.
3) The State Common Entrance Test Cell,
Maharashtra State, through its
Commissioner and Competent authority,
8th Floor, New Excelsior Building A. K.
Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 01.
4) The Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences Nashik, through its Registrar,
Dindori Road, Mhasrul Nashik - 422004.
5) Late Dr. Sau. Vasudha Zade
Nursing College, Chandrapur,
through its Principal,
Tah. and District Chandrapur .... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande, AGP for respondent No.1.
Mr. N. A. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32-B.wp.6690.2022.judgment.odt
(2)
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATED : 10.11.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. We find the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 as having
been passed mechanically and without any application of mind to
the explanation submitted by the petitioner as to how her Tribe
which is Nomadic Tribe (B) was understood by her to be falling in
the category of NT-2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that since the petitioner possesses a caste certificate
showing her to be belonging to Nomadic Tribe (B), the petitioner in
good faith believed that Nomadic Tribe (B) is equivalent to Nomadic
Tribe-2 category, although the perception of respondent No.2 is
different and does not match with that of petitioner. Whatever it
is, it was necessary on the part of the respondent No.2 to consider
the issue in depth, apply his mind to the explanation submitted by
the petitioner and then pass an order stating the reasons for the
conclusion reached in the order. Besides, the issue involved in this
petition can have its bearing upon the eligibility of petitioner, and
32-B.wp.6690.2022.judgment.odt
therefore, it is all the more reason for respondent No.2 to have
stated reasons at the time of passing the impugned order. As that has
not happened in the present case, we are of the view that the
impugned order cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The petition is
allowed, the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The issue is remanded back to respondent No.2 for its fresh
consideration in accordance with law. We permit the petitioner to
appear before the Respondent No.2, and they may appear before
him on 2 8 th November, 2023 at 11.00 a.m. We also permit the
petitioner to produce documents, if any, in support of the
explanation given by the petitioner. Fresh decision in accordance
with law shall be taken by respondent No.2 within two weeks from
the date of appearance of the both or either of the petitioner
before him. While considering representation same to be decided
without imposing fine as we are imposing fine of Rs.15,000/-. Fine
amount be paid to Vidharbha Lady Lawyers Association, Nagpur.
(URMIL A JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/11/2023 20:42:38
