Allowed

Komal D/O. Sunil Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra through It Secretary

Bombay HC10 Jun 2009WP/3400/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking a direction to the scrutiny committee to decide the petitioner's caste claim and restraining the college from cancelling her admission pending the decision. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the committee to decide within six months and restraining the institute from adverse action.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Scrutiny Committee directed to decide caste claim within six months; Institute restrained from cancelling admission pending decision.

Komal D/O. Sunil Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3400 OF 2009

¶4

Komal d/o Sunil Jaiswal, age 21 years, Occ. Student, R/o 1010 Ghash Mandi, Busstop, Gavlipura, Chavni, Aurangabad.

¶5

PETITIONER.

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

State of Maharashtra, Through its’ Secretary, Higher Education Department (Copy to be served on AGP High Court Bench at Aurangabad.) 2. The Director of Technical Education Mahapalika Marg, P.O. Box No.1967, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai – 400 001. Through its Joint Director, Technical Education, Aurangabad. 3. Principal, MGM’s institute of Physio Therapy Aurangabad. 4. Chairman, Divisional Caste Certificate, Scrutiny Committee No.1, Divisional Social Welfare Office, Cidco, N-4, Jaibhavani Chowk, Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri S. D. Hiwrekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Jadhav, A.G.P for respondent – State. Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.3. ...

¶8

¶9

CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2009.

¶11

...

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :- ( PER HARDAS, J : )

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, this petition is decided finally at the stage of admission.

¶14

The petitioner in this petition has prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondents Scrutiny Committee to expeditiously decide the caste claim of the petitioner and has also prayed for issuance of a writ to the respondent No.3 for restraining the respondent No.3 from canceling the admission of the petitioner till the decision of the respondent- scrutiny committee. In the light of limited relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage.

¶15

We have heard Shri S.D. Hiwrekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader Shri N. N. Jadhav on behalf of respondents No.1,2 and 5 and Shri V. D. Salunke, the learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.3.

¶16

Undisputedly, the petitioner came to be granted admission by respondent No.3 in its institute i.e MGM Institute Physio Therapy at

¶17

¶18

Aurangabad pursuant to the marks obtained by the petitioner in H. S. C. Examination as well as the C. E. T. examination. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Hindu ‘Kalal’ caste which is recognized as other back ward class. Admission of the petitioner was subject to the petitioner producing the caste validity certificate from the caste scrutiny committee. According to the petitioner, the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to respondent scrutiny committee by the Vivekanand Art, Commerce and Science College, Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad somewhere in July, 2007. Despite the caste claim being referred to the committee, according to the petitioner, the caste claim has not been decided. In the meanwhile, the respondents have threatened the petitioner with cancellation of her admission on account of failure of the petitioner to produce validity certificate.

¶19

According to us, the petitioner cannot be faulted for the delay which has occurred in the decision of her caste claim. According to us the admission of the petitioner deserves to be protected during the pendency of the proceeding before the Scrutiny Committee. In the light of that, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and respondent- Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within six months of 22^nd of June, 2009. We direct the petitioner to remain present before the

¶20

¶21

respondent- Scrutiny Committee on 29th of June, 2009 and to co-

¶22

operate in the expeditious disposal of her caste claim by the respondent scrutiny committee. During the pendency of the proceeding before the respondent scrutiny committee, we direct the respondent No.3 not to take any adverse action against the petitioner in respect of cancellation of her admission because of failure of the petitioner to produce validity certificate within the stipulated period.

¶23

Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above

¶24

with no order as to costs.

¶25

( R. K. DESHPANDE ) ( P. V. HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

aaa/office/wp3400.09

¶27

Komal D/O. Sunil Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra through It Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal D/O. Sunil Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra through It Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaji Tulshiram Argade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balaji Tulshiram Argade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxman Eknath Manal Vs Vijay Himmatrao Nagare and Ors.

Waman Pandhari Tayde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tukaram Laxman Suse Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mauli Mazoor Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.