Dismissed

Miss Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar v. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Pune Region

Bombay HC5 Mar 2012WP/5624/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a limited direction to issue a D.Ed completion certificate without using the false caste certificate for future benefits. High Court held statutory bar applies and dismissed petition.

What did the court decide?

Request for limited direction to issue certificate was refused; petition dismissed and civil application disposed of.

Miss Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar Vs the Scheduled Tribe… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

rng

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5624 OF 2011

¶5

Ms.Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar .. Petitioner

¶6

vs

¶7

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region
& ors .. Respondents

¶8

with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.556 OF 2012

¶9

The Secretary to the Government
School Education & Sport Dept .. Applicants

¶10

vs

¶11

1.Ms Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar .. Respondent

¶12

Mr.K.P.Anilkumar for Petitioner
Mr.C.R.Sonawane A.G.P. for Respondents
and for Applicant in C.A.NO.556 of 2012

¶13

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR &
N.M.JAMDAR, JJ

¶14

 DATE: 5th March, 2012

¶15

P.C.

¶16

 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

1. The only question pressed by the Petitioner's

¶18

counsel was that the Petitioner would be more than
content if limited direction was issued to the
Respondents to issue certificate to the Petitioner
for having completed D.Ed course and the Petitioner

¶19

in turn would file an undertaking that the caste

¶20

¶21

certificate on which reliance was placed by the
Petitioner will not be used by her or any of her
family members for any purpose including for
pursuing education or employment in future.

¶22

2. In the reply Affidavit filed by Mr.M.K.More
Research Officer, Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee Pune reliance is placed on the
decision in the case of KUMARI SHWETHA VS STATE OF
MAHARASHTRAdecided on 11.1.2010 by the Division
bench which in turn followed the decision of Full
Bench of our High Court in the case of GANESH
RAMBUAU KHALALE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2009 (2)
Mh.L.J. 788.

¶23

3. In addition, reference is also made to another
Division Bench judgment in the case of PRIYANKA
OMPRAKASH PANWAR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ors 2008
(1) Mh.L.J.715which had the occasion to consider
the impact of section 10(3) of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,De-notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulations of issuance and verification of Caste
Certificate) Act 2001.

¶24

¶25

4. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, placed
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of UNION OF INDIA VS DATTATRAY NAMDEO MENDHEKAR

¶26

reported in 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 720. He has also
placed reliance on the latest Judgment of the Apex
Court in RAIWAD MANOJKUMAR NIVRUTTIRAO VS STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA 2012 (1) Mh.LJ 610.

¶27

5. Indeed, the operative order passed in the
aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court would
support the Petitioner herein. However, learned
counsel for the Petitioner in all fairness, concedes
that the above said two decisions have not
considered the effect of statutory provisions in the
Act of 2001.

¶28

 Section 10 (3) reads thus :

¶29

 Notwithstanding anything contained in
any Act for the time being in force any
degree,Diploma or any other educational
qualification acquired by such person
aftersecuringadmissioninany
educational institution on the basis of a
caste certificate which is subsequently
proved to be false shall also stand
canceled, on cancellation of such Caste
Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.�

¶30

¶31

6.The impact of this provision has been
considered by the Division Bench of our High Court
in the case of PRIYANKA OMPRAKASH PAWAR VS.STATE OF

¶32

MAHARASHTRA reported in 2008(1) Mh.LJ 715.
Moreover, decision of the apex Court in the case of
UNION OF INDIA VS DATTATRAYA DATTATRAYA NAMDEO
MENDHEKAR supra been considered by the Full Bench of
our High Court in the case of GANESH RAMBHAU KHALALE
VS.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2009 (2) Mh.LJ
788.

¶33

7. After considering all aspects the Full Bench
has opined that the Division Bench in the case UNION
OF INDIA VS DATTATRAYA NAMDEO MENDHEKAR reported in
2008 (1) Mh.LJ 720 lays down the correct position of
law.

¶34

8. In this view of the matter, it is not possible
to accede to the request of the Petitioner to issue
directions to the Respondents even the limited one
pressed before this Court. Hence, this petition
fails. The same is dismissed.

¶35

9. While parting with this order, we place on

¶36

¶37

record that today Mr.C.R.Sonawane learned A.G.P. has
prepared compilation of all the relevant decisions
on the point and has assisted the Court well by
citing the reported decisions including the ones
referred to above.

¶38

 In view of the above observations, Civil

¶39

Application accordingly stands disposed of.

¶40

N.M.JAMDAR, J

¶41

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

Miss Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar v. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Pune Region

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar v. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Pune Region

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashwant Dagdu Pawar Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 9 Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Ltd, through Bandopant Madhukar Sathe Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept and Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Ltd, through Bandopant Madhukar Sathe Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept and Ors.

Palm Towers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dr. Sureshchandra R. Bhosale and Ors. Vs University of Pune and Ors.

Sakharam Mahadeo Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.