Disposed

Yahaya and Yousuf Azam Qurram Ahmed Khan Both Minor Thrugh Guardian Father Khan Sayyed Qurram Ahmed v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC11 Jul 2016WP/7162/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to verify tribe certificates of two petitioner brothers within six months. Regarding one brother who lacks a validity certificate but is eligible for a Scheduled Tribe medical seat, the court allowed admission contingent upon producing the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Scrutiny Committee directed to decide tribe certificate verification in six months; petitioner entitled to medical admission subject to producing validity certificate.

Yahaya and Yousuf Azam Qurram Ahmed Khan Both… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp716216.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7162 OF 2016

¶4

Yahaya Azam s/o Qurram Ahmed Khan and another

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.H.D.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.S.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶11

K.L.WADANE, JJ. DATE : 11th July, 2016

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 Both the petitioners, who are real brothers inter se claim to be belonging to 'Tadvi', a Scheduled Tribe.

¶14

2 It is contended that their father is possessed of validity certificate. The issue in respect of verification of tribe certificates issued in favour of both the petitioners is stated to be pending with the Scrutiny Committee.

¶15

3 So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is stated that he has appeared for MH-CET examination and is likely to secure admission to medical course as against a seat earmarked for Scheduled Tribe category. In view of condition no.5 contained in Annexure-A to the Notification in respect of admission process, issued by the State, the candidate claiming Constitutional Reservation is required to produce the caste/tribe validity

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp716216.odt

¶18

certificate at the time of presentation of preference form. Petitioner No.1, though did not possess validity certificate, has been permitted to tender preference form in view of certain directions issued by this Court earlier in similar matters. Petitioner no.1 is, however, required to tender an undertaking to produce validity certificate before 22.07.2016; and it has been informed that he would not be entitled to get admission unless he produces the validity certificate before 22.07.2016.

¶19

4 It is the contention of petitioners that the proposals for verification of tribe certificates, issued in their favour, are pending with Respondent-Scrutiny Committee and it is not within their domain to secure the validity certificates within the prescribed time provided in the undertaking.

¶20

5 Considering facts and circumstances of this petition, petition can be disposed of by issuing following directions:

¶21

(A) Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the proposals in respect of verification of tribe certificates of both the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.

¶22

(B) Claim of petitioner no.1 for admission to medical course shall be considered treating him as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, however, subject to production of validity certificate.

¶23

{3}

¶24

wp716216.odt

¶25

(C) If petitioner no.1 is found eligible to secure admission to medical course, he shall be admitted to medical course and no adverse action be taken against him only on account of his failure to tender validity certificate within the time limit provided under the undertaking.

¶26

6 With the directions as above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

R.M.BORDE

¶28

K.L.WADANE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

adb/wp716216

Yahaya and Yousuf Azam Qurram Ahmed Khan Both Minor Thrugh Guardian Father Khan Sayyed Qurram Ahmed v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yahaya and Yousuf Azam Qurram Ahmed Khan Both Minor Thrugh Guardian Father Khan Sayyed Qurram Ahmed v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Deepak Vimalkant Pande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhav Tippa Ghodke Dead through His Lrs Ratanbai and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parubai Sadashiv Ghevare Died Though Lrs Vasant Sadashiv Ghevare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sneha Maheshawar Anmod Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Kapil Baburao Korbanwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sajeda Tarannum MD Zaki Qureshi Vs the Union of India and Others