Dismissed

Rajkumar Suresh Koli v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2006WP/6207/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, addressed a writ petition seeking declaration of examination results and release of mark sheets for a petitioner who admitted himself into a D.Ed. course reserved for SCs without a valid caste certificate. The Court held that a candidate with a fraudulent certificate cannot claim benefits, emphasizing the need for caste validity before result

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; Petition dismissed as not a case exercising extraordinary jurisdiction pending caste validation.

Rajkumar Suresh Koli Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.6207 OF 2005

¶5

 Rajkumar Suresh Koli ..Petitioner.
 Vs.

¶6

 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.R.K.Mendadkar with Ms.Helen Mandlik for the

¶8

 Petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.R.D.Rane, Government Pleader for Respondent

¶10

 Nos.1 and 3.

¶11

 Ms.Deepa Chavan i/b M/s.Little & Co. for
 Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM :F.I.REBELLO, J. AND

¶13

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.

¶14

 21st February, 2006.

¶15

 P.C.:

¶16

 1. Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶17

 2. The Petitioner claimed to belong to Mahadeo
 Koli, S.C. He was admitted against a seat reserved

¶18

¶19

 for S.C. The counsel states that the certificate
 till date has not been forwarded to the relevant

¶20

 committee to decide the tribe status of the
 Petitioner. The Petitioner in the meantime has
 appeared and completed two years course and has now
 approached this Court, praying that the Respondent
 be directed to declare the result of the Petitioner
 of the Second and final year D.Ed. Course
 examination held in November 2004 and also to
 release his marksheet and other documents. A reply
 has been filed on behalf of the Maharashtra State
 Examination Council for Educational Research &
 Training by Mr.V.P.Kanawade with enclosure which
 includes the undertaking given by the Petitioner.
 In the undertaking the Petitioner has clearly set
 out that he will claim no benefits if his tribe
 status/ caste status was not verified by the
 relevant committee.

¶21

 3. Time and again we have come across a large
 number of matters of students seeking admission
 without having the caste validity certificate. The
 Government has for some professional courses framed
 rules which require the candidate to produce the
 certificate within 12 weeks. This is so, in case

¶22

¶23

 of Medical and Engineering students. It is the

¶24

 case of the Petitioner that there is no such
 requirement as far as D.Ed. course is concerned.
 This Court, considering the fact that many a time
 students who seek admission coming from the
 backward class whose parents may not have taken
 caste validity certificate, has taken a view that
 the requirement is directory so that genuine
 students are not denied their rightful claim. At
 the same time, reading such a provision as
 directory should not give undue benefit to those
 students who seek admission against a reserved seat
 but who in fact do not belong to a reserved
 catgory, but have obtained admission on a
 fraudulent certificate.

¶25

 4. Learned counsel points out to us judgments
 of this Court which have directed declaration of
 the results where the students have completed the
 D.Ed. course and where the caste validity
 certificate was not obtained.

¶26

 5. In none of those judgments have the
 Division Benches considered the kind of undertaking
 given by the candidate as has been given in the

¶27

¶28

 instant case. Even otherwise whether it be in

¶29

Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner,
Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 or

¶30

R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (2004) 2

¶31

 SCC 105 or in State of Maharashtra v. Milind
 (2001(1) SCC 4), the Apex Court has not taken a
 view, as a rule, that every student who gets the
 admission and completes his course has a right to
 get the result declared even if the certificate is
 found to be fraudulent. On the facts of those
 cases, the Apex Court has taken a view that no
 purpose would be served in cancelling the degrees
 obtained by the candidates who have already passed
 the examination.

¶32

 6. The constitutional scheme for protection is
 to see to it that those who otherwise were not
 entitled or would not be admitted in professional
 course have a chance to secure admission as a part
 of social engineering. That object which underlies
 the constitutional philosophy cannot be defeated by
 persons who do not belong to reserved category and
 who may on the strength of some fraudulent
 certificate as belonging to a reserved category and
 secure admission, to be allowed to take the benefit

¶33

¶34

 of the constitutional provision merely because
 Tribunals and Courts, on account of sheer docket of
 cases are not in a position to dispose of the
 matters before the course is completed. The Apex
 Court in the judgments aforesaid has clearly held
 that a person who takes a certificate based on
 fraud is not entitled to any protection.

¶35

 7. We are clearly therefore of the view that
 where a candidate gives an undertaking claiming no
 benefit, if his caste certificate is rejected,
 cannot get a benefit of getting his results
 declared.

¶36

 8. In these circumstances, the Respondent
 State to consider taking from every candidate in
 every professional field whether it be education or
 employment or otherwise where there are
 reservations, an undertaking that the candidate
 will claim no benefit including declaration of
 results if his claim is not validated by the
 relevant committee set up for that purpose.

¶37

 9. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the
 Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra for further

¶38

¶39

 action.

¶40

 10. In the light of the above, we find no merit
 in this Petition. At any rate, this would not be a
 case to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
 It would be open to the Petitioner to pursue his
 caste claim before the relevant committee and if
 that committee upholds the Petitioner’s caste
 validity, then it is for the Respondent on
 production of the caste validity certificate to

¶41

 declare the result of the Petitioner.

¶42

 11. With the above observations, rule
 discharged. The Petition is disposed of. There

¶43

 shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

¶45

(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

Rajkumar Suresh Koli v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Suresh Koli v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bebibai Hanuman Patil Vs Managing Director (Cidco Ltd) and Ors.

Shikha Ajit Sancheti Vs Poona Merchant Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Ajit Chandrakant Sancheti Vs Poona Merchant Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Kumar Resort and Amusement Pvt.Ltd. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors.

Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs the Secretary (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas ) and Ors.

Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corpoation Ltd. and Ors.