Disposed

Tejaswini Sanjay Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2007WP/279/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding caste scrutiny for reserved seats in an educational college, the bench ordered the Scrutiny Committee to decide the petitioner's claim within three months. The petitioner agreed to appear, but the college was forbidden from discontinuing her studies, and any adverse decision would be stayed for eight weeks after service.

What did the court decide?

College to not discontinue studies; Scrutiny Committee to decide claim within three months; adverse decision stayed for eight weeks after service.

Tejaswini Sanjay Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 WRIT PETITION NO.279 OF 2007
 ------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
 or directions and Registrar’s :
 orders. :

¶2

 ------------------------------------:------------------------------------
 Mr.C.K.Bhagoji i/by
 Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for petitioner.
 Mr.R.D.Rane, Addl.G.P. for
 respondents.
 -----
CORAM : H.L GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
 V.M.KANADE, J.

¶3

DATED : 15th January 2007
 P.C. :
 1. Heard the learned Counsel
 for the parties.

¶4

 2. The petitioner claims to
 belong to the Scheduled Tribe -
 Thakar. She applied for scrutiny
 of her caste claim in April 2006,
 but it is her case that her
 application is misplaced and
 another application is made in

¶5

 September 2006.

¶6

 3. Mr.Bhagoji, Advocate
 appearing for the petitioner,
 states that in the meanwhile she

¶7

 has been admitted in the 4th

¶8

 respondent-College in a reserved

¶9

 seat. Now, the College is

¶10

 insisting on the scrutiny

¶11

 certificate and rightly so.

¶12

 4. Even so, considering that

¶13

 the petitioner is already
 admitted, we request the 2nd

¶14

 respondent-Scrutiny Committee to

¶15

 decide the claim of the petitioner

¶16

 at the earliest and preferably,

¶17

 within three months from the

¶18

 receipt of the application.

¶19

 5. The petitioner will appear

¶20

 before the Scrutiny Committee on

¶21

 29th January 2007 and co-operate

¶22

 with the Committee in the matter.

¶23

 The petitioner will not seek any

¶24

 adjournment. The College will not
 discontinue her studies and in the
 meanwhile, the decision of the

¶25

 Committee, if adverse to the

¶26

 petitioner, will not be acted upon
 for a period of eight weeks after

¶27

 the same is served on the

¶28

 petition.

¶29

 6. Petition is disposed of

¶30

 with the above order.

¶31

(ACTING C.J.)

¶32

 (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Tejaswini Sanjay Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejaswini Sanjay Jadhav 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

Salvador Swami (Edwad) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nirmal Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary,Mantralaya,Mumbai and Ors.

Beena K.Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balaji Mahadeo Charate Vs the State Election Commissioner and Ors.

M/S.Amit Petroleum Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra

Chatrapati Shahu Central Institute of Business, Education and Research Vs Shivaji University, Kolhapur and Anr.