Dismissed

Rebacca Thomas Vaz v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Aug 2012WP/4490/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an OBC student admitted to a BDS course without a caste certificate, sought intervention as she was allowed per vacation judge orders pending certificate. This Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the application for certificate with the concerned officer.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim relief vacated; respondent instructed to decide pending application at earliest.

Rebacca Thomas Vaz Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

(1) WP NO.4490/2012
WRIT PETITION NO. 4490 OF 2012

¶3

REBACCA THOMAS VAZ
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

¶4

...

¶5

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Kale Mahesh P.
AGP for Respondents:Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi.
Advocate for Respondents No.2 :Mr. R.T.Deshmukh.

¶6

...

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
Dated: August 28, 2012
...

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

1. Heard.

¶10

2. Petitioner claims to be a person belonging to
Other Backward Class. Without having a caste
certificate, the petitioner was successful in
getting admission in respondent College in
First Year of B.D.S. Course. It is
submitted that the petitioner has appeared
for the First Year of B.D.S. Course
examination under the orders passed by the
learned Vacation Judge on 21st May, 2012.
Learned Vacation Judge had made it clear that
the petitioner is not entitled to claim any
equity for being allowed to appear at the
examination and the result shall not be
declared until further orders are passed by
this Court. The petitioner, admittedly, does
not possess caste certificate nor validity
certificate.

¶11

AGP/-

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶13

(2)WP NO.4490/2012

¶14

3. It is submitted that the application for grant of certificate is pending before respondent no.3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi, district, Thane.

¶15

4. Learned A.G.P. submits that, in fact, the petition should have been filed at the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court. In the facts of the case, we would only observe that the learned A.G.P. may instruct respondent no.3 to decide the application at the earliest.

¶16

5. No further interference is warranted by this Court. Writ Petition dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated.

¶17

6. Registry to provide authenticated copy to learned A.G.P.

¶18

(A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.)

¶19

AGP/-

Rebacca Thomas Vaz v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rebacca Thomas Vaz v. the State of Mah 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

Prabhavati Babasaheb Kombade Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Thr Member Secretary and Ors.

Sandip Gulabrao Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Babasaheb Genuji Dhas Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vasant Janardhan Thete Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Ziyauddin Shaikh Ajimouddin Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Gayabai Shankarrao Janjal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.