Disposed

Miss. Rebecca Thomas Vaz v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2012WP/9095/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay protected a petitioner's temporary admission to a B.D.S. course while directing the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide her pending appeal on caste certification quickly, subject to forfeiture of admission if the caste claim fails.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the appeal within one month or four months; admitted petitioner with condition of forfeiture if caste claim fails.

Miss. Rebecca Thomas Vaz Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp9095-12.sxw

¶2

dmt 1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9095 OF 2012

¶6

Rebecca Thomas Vaz. .. Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶9

Ms. Sarala Shinde for the Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP. for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶11

26 SEPTEMBER 2012.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The Petitioner has obtained admission for the B.D.S. Course at the Aditya Dental College and Hospital, Beed claiming as an O.B.C. candidate. The Petitioner had furnished an undertaking to the college at the time of admission that she would file a Caste Validity Certificate within three months. The claim of the Petitioner for the issuance of a Caste Certificate was rejected by the S.D.O. Bhiwandi on 10 August 2012. The Petitioner had filed an appeal before the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Bhawan, Navi Mumbai, which is still pending. The Petitioner was permitted to appear for the examination for the first year of the B.D.S. Course pursuant to an order dated 21 May 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge at the Aurangabad Bench.¹ Subsequently by an order dated 28 August 2012 the Division Bench recorded the statement of the AGP that since the application for a Caste Certificate was pending before the S.D.O., that application would be disposed of at the earliest. The Petition was dismissed. As noted earlier, the S.D.O. has declined to grant a Caste Certificate against which order the Petitioner is in appeal

¶14

1 W.P. (Stamp) No. 14840 of 2012

¶15

dmt 2/3

¶16

wp9095-12.sxw

¶17

before the Scrutiny Committee. In the circumstances, whilst we are of the view that the admission which has been granted to the Petitioner should be protected in the interregnum, this should be subject to a specific condition that the admission would be liable to be forfeited and no equity would be created if the Caste claim of the Petitioner is invalidated.

¶18

We, accordingly, dispose of the Petition in terms of the following directions :

¶19

(i) The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Navi Mumbai, is directed to dispose of the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order of the S.D.O. Bhiwandi dated 10 August 2012 refusing to grant a Caste Certificate within one month of the production of an authenticated copy of this order;

¶20

(ii) The Petitioner shall appear with an authenticated copy of this order before the Scrutiny Committee on 10 October 2012 at 12.00 noon for receiving further directions as to hearing. The Petitioner would be at liberty to produce documents before the Scrutiny Committee on 10 October 2012 in addition to what has already been produced before the S.D.O. Bhiwandi;

¶21

(iii) In the event that the Petitioner is granted a Caste Certificate, the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Navi Mumbai, shall proceed to complete the process of verification and decide the Appeal within a period of four months from the date of the issuance of the Caste Certificate;

¶22

(iv) In the event that a Caste Certificate is refused, the

¶23

dmt 3/3

¶24

wp9095-12.sxw

¶25

Petitioner would be at liberty to pursue such remedies as are available in law.

¶26

(v( In the meantime, the admission which has been granted to the Petitioner shall not be disturbed subject to the express condition that the admission shall stand forfeited and no equity shall be claimed if the caste claim of the Petitioner is rejected.

¶27

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

¶29

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

Miss. Rebecca Thomas Vaz v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss. Rebecca Thomas Vaz v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharati Dyandeo Mali Vs the President/Secretatry, Nav Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Dr. Tanwangee Y. Joag Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Nagendra Krishna Jadhav Vs University Grants Commission, through Secretary and Ors.

Kum. Ayesha Tahir Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Dept and Ors.

1. Vijaykumar Hariram Sahu and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mr. Krishnalal S. Attkan Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Dept of Railways, Ministry of Railways and Ors.