Allowed

Hemantkumar Prakash Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2010WP/584/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the cancellation of his engineering admission in an O.B.C. category seat due to failure to produce a validity certificate in time. The Court held that the delay was attributable to the authorities and ordered the restoration of the admission and entitlement to examination benefits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication cancelling admission was quashed. The petitioner was permitted to produce the validity certificate and his admission was restored. He was entitled to examination permission

Hemantkumar Prakash Pawar Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.584 OF 2010

¶4

Hemantkumar Prakash Pawar, Age : 18 years, Occ. Education, R/o 4B, Shri Guru Colony, Dhule ..PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Higher Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

¶7

The Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra, 3 Mahapalika Marg, Post Box no.1967, Mumbai-400 001

¶8

The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division No.2, Dhule

¶9

The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon

¶10

The Principal, D.N. Patel, College of Engineering, Post Box no.61, Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar - 425 409 ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr Shrikant Patil, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3; Mr A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶12

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ

¶13

DATE : 16th April, 2010

¶14

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ]

¶16

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶17

We have heard Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri S.K. Tambe, learned A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri A.B. Girase, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. None appears on behalf of respondent no.5 though respondent no.5 has been served. We have perused the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner and it transpires that the respondent no.5 has been served and has chosen not to put in appearance.

¶18

The petitioner came to be granted admission for the first year degree course in Engineering for the academic year 2009-10 on a seat which was reserved for O.B.C. candidates. At the time of admission, since the petitioner was not possessing the validity certificate, the petitioner was granted time for producing the validity certificate. However, since the validity certificate was not produced by the petitioner, by communication dated 30.11.2009, which was received by the petitioner on 18.1.2010, the admission of the petitioner came to be cancelled. The caste

¶19

¶20

claim of the petitioner had been submitted to the respondentsauthorities for verification and for no fault of the petitioner, the admission of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner has now annexed to the petition a validity certificate dated 21.12.2009 validating his claim as belonging to "Kunbi" - O.B.C. category.

¶21

In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition by quashing the impugned communication dated 30.11.2009 cancelling the admission of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to produce the validity certificate before the respondent-authorities and direct the respondent-authorities to restore the admission of the petitioner. In the light of restoration of the admission of the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including permission to appear for the examination, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.

¶22

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute on the above terms.

¶23

( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

amj/wp584.10

¶25

Hemantkumar Prakash Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemantkumar Prakash Pawar v. the 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

Taterao Apparao Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ranjana Arjun Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Eklavya Magas Seva Samittee Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Parasram Suryabhan Kakade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

State of Maharashtra Vs Devidasrao Shankarrao Nemiwant

Uttamrao Dhulbaraomaske and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.