Allowed

Suchitra Arun Balwatkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Dec 2006WP/6746/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner was admitted to a dental college on a Scheduled Tribe certificate, which was cancelled due to older school records showing Koli caste. The court cancelled her ST status but regularized her admission as an open category candidate to prevent seat wastage.

What did the court decide?

Admission regularized as open/general category candidate; ST category status permanently withdrawn.

Suchitra Arun Balwatkar Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6746 OF 2006

¶4

Suchitra Arun Balwatkar

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents

¶8

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms. Helen Mandlik for the petitioner. Mr. R.D. Rane, Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶9

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 served ( absent).

¶10

CORAM : H.S. BEDI, C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J.

¶11

DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2006 .

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Rule. The learned Government Pleader waives service of

¶14

Rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Heard forthwith.

¶15

The petitioner was granted admission to the First Year of Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course in Respondent No.4 College during the academic year 2005-2006, on the basis of the caste certficate issued to her by the Competent Authority on 10^th November, 2004, as

¶16

belonging to Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe. As per the procedure prescribed, her certificate was sent for verification to the Scrutiny Committee, on 29^th March, 2004. The said Committee after conducting an inquiry and after perusing the documents placed on record and other aspects, cancelled the certficiate on the plea that the school record of the relatives of the petitioner shows the caste as Koli in the year 1932, 1934 and 1939 respectively. We have gone through the same and find no infirmity. The same is, therefore, confirmed.

¶17

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for protection of petitioner's admission in Respondent No.4 College. Concededly, the petitioner is prosecuting her studies in the said College and if her admission is cancelled, no other candidate would be available to take the seat of the petitioner, and resultantly the said seat would go waste. Accordingly, we direct that the admission of the petitioner be regularised in her capacity as a open/general category candidate and further direct that she wil not henceforth take any advantage of or claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe category any further for any purpose.

¶18

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

V.M. KANADE, J.

Suchitra Arun Balwatkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchitra Arun Balwatkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Bhayani and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manohar Mahadev Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Udayan L. Shah Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Sajjad Hussein Abdul Rahman and Ors. Vs Director of Town Planning and Ors.

Ils Legal Aid Center and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Hanumant Sugare Vs Ekatmata Samaj Seva Sudharana Mandal and Ors.