Allowed

Pathan Musaveer Khan Baktiyar Khan v. Maharashtra University of Health Science Nashik Though Registrar and Others

Bombay HC14 Feb 2019WP/2013/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment declares multi-petitioner writ petitions filed by students against Maharashtra University of Health Science. The petitioners faced withheld results while their validation claims hung pending before a Scrutiny Committee. The bench allowed the petitions, directing the Committee to decide claims within three months to prevent adverse action.

What did the court decide?

The Scrutiny Committee directed to decide claims within three months; University directed to declare results and permit studies.

Pathan Musaveer Khan Baktiyar Khan Vs Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp2013.19

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2013 OF 2019

¶5

PATHAN MUSAVEER KHAN BAKTIYAR KHAN VERSUS

¶6

MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE NASHIK THOUGH REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. S.S.Phatale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. V.S. Badakh, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.2014 OF 2019

¶10

PATHAN MUDDASIR KHAN MUKHTAR KHAN VERSUS

¶11

MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE NATHIK AND OTHERS

¶12

Mr. S.S.Phatale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.2020 OF 2019

¶15

SWATI MOHAN GHAINWAD

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE NASHIK AND OTHERS

¶18

Mr. S.S. Phatale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.B.Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶19

WITH

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.2021 OF 2019

¶21

SHITAL SUBHASH MALU

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

1/ 8

( 2 )

wp2013.19

Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. R.P. Gour, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶28

WITH

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.2022 OF 2019

¶30

GAJANAN SHIVAJI SIDDAMWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶31

Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K.N. Lokhande, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶32

WITH

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO.2023 OF 2019

¶34

KETKI SATYAWAN THAKUR VERSUS

¶35

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶36

Mr. S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. V.S. Badakh, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. Shrikant Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶37

WITH

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO.2024 OF 2019

¶39

ANJUSHRI ASHOK BHOSALE VERSUS

¶40

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶41

Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. Bayas Anand Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶42

WITH

¶43

WRIT PETITION NO.2025 OF 2019

¶44

NIKETAN SURESH KOMATWAR THROUGH FATHER SURESH RAMCHANDRA KOMATWAR VERSUS

¶45

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2/ 8

( 3 )

wp2013.19

Mr. S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶50

WITH

¶51

WRIT PETITION NO.2031 OF 2019

¶52

RANI UTTAMRAO BODKHE VERSUS

¶53

MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE NASHIK THROUGH REGISTRAR AND OTEHRS

¶54

Mr. S.S.Phatale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K.N.Lokhande, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.B.Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶55

WITH

¶56

WRIT PETITION NO.2037 OF 2019

¶57

UMESH MADHAVRAO ADBALWAD VERSUS

¶58

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶59

Mr. S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.B.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶60

WITH

¶61

WRIT PETITION NO.2038 OF 2019

¶62

ASHWINI GANGADHAR BHANDEWAD

¶63

VERSUS

¶64

MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE NASHIK AND OTHERS

¶65

Mr. S.S. Phatale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. R.P. Gour, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No.1.

3/ 8

( 4 )

wp2013.19

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.2041 OF 2019

¶71

NARAYAN DIGAMBAR KASALWAD VERSUS

¶72

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶73

Mr. P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K.N. Lokhande, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶74

WITH

¶75

WRIT PETITION NO.2042 OF 2019

¶76

VIVEK SAYANNA AADPOD VERSUS

¶77

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶78

Mr. P.V.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. V.S. Badakh, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.D. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶79

WITH

¶80

WRIT PETITION NO.2043 OF 2019

¶81

SACHIN PRAKASH ANNAMWAR VERSUS

¶82

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶83

Mr. P.V.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for the respondent/State

¶84

WITH

¶85

WRIT PETITION NO.2157 OF 2019

¶86

NISHA VENKATRAO GAWARWAR VERSUS

¶87

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶88

Mr. S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. R.P. Gour, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

4/ 8

( 5 )

wp2013.19

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.2166 OF 2019

¶94

SNEHA PRAKASH AINLAWAR VERSUS

¶95

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS

¶96

Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶97

WITH

¶98

WRIT PETITION NO.2167 OF 2019

¶99

SAMPADA SUNIL NAGAMWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS

¶100

Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. R.P. Gour, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. Bayas Anand Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶101

WITH

¶102

WRIT PETITION NO.2174 OF 2019

¶103

SHRINIVAS DHONDIBA WAGHMOD VERSUS

¶104

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS

¶105

Mr. E.S. Murge, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K.N. Lokhande, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. J.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶106

WITH

¶107

WRIT PETITION NO.2176 OF 2019

¶108

AKASH KEDAR DUDHAMBE VERSUS

¶109

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS

¶110

Mr. P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent/State

5/ 8

( 6 )

wp2013.19

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :14.02.2019

¶115

P.C. :-

¶116

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶117

2.All these petitions are challenging the
declaration of result by way of statement of marks
through the respondent-University i.e. Maharashtra
University of Health Science, Nashik (herein after
referred to as the "University" for sake of brevity)
referring to the caption result 'Withheld Hon. Court
Ruling Awaited'. The petitioners are prosecuting their
studies in medical course and other courses etc. The
petitioners in their earlier round of litigation
approached this Court on the ground that the claim for
validation is pending before the Competent Scrutiny
Committee and the respondent-College and the University
may not take adverse action against the petitioners and
permit the petitioners to prosecute their further
studies subject to decision of the Committee. The
petition were disposed by the order of the Division
Bench. The Division Bench while disposing the petition
directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the validation
proposal within stipulated period. The Division Bench
then directed the respective College and University not
to take adverse action against the petitioners and
permit the petitioners to prosecute further studies
subject to decision of the Committee.

6/ 8

( 7 )

wp2013.19

3.Learned counsel appearing for the respective
petitioners submits that till date the claim is pending
before the Scrutiny Committee for decision in spite of
representation submitted by the petitioners to the
Committee. It is also submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the respective College and the
University were specifically directed not to take any
adverse action against the petitioner and permit the
petitioners to prosecute their further studies subject
to the decision of the Committee and in spite of the
directions of this Court, the University is issuing the
statement of marks to these petitioners withhelding
their result on an auspiciously that 'Court Ruling is
awaited'. It was also submission of the learned counsel
is for the petitioners that as the Committee is seating
tight over on the claims, the ultimate sufferer are the
petitioners. It is not in dispute that the claim is
pending before the Scrutiny Committee and the
petitioners had to play no role in the decision making
process except to submit the relevant material to the
Committee and awaiting the decision of the Committee.

¶122

4.Considering these facts and on the backdrop of
the submissions of the learned counsels, we are of the
opinion that the counsel appearing for the petitioners
made out the case, the petitions deserve to be allowed.

¶123

5.Accordingly we direct respondent No.3-
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Aurangabad to decide the claim of the petitioners

¶124

7/ 8

¶125

( 8 ) wp2013.19

¶126

expeditiously and not later than three months from the
date of order of this Court.

¶127

6.We further direct the respondent-University as
well the respondent-College to declare the result of the
petitioners and permit the petitioners to prosecute
their further studies or internship as the case may be
and not to take any adverse action on the ground that
the claim is pending before the Committee.

¶128

7.We further make it clear that on the decision
of the Committee, the respondent-University and the
respective College is at liberty to take appropriate
steps in view of the decision of the respective
Committee either at Aurangabad or Nashik.

¶129

8.With these above directions, the petitions are
disposed of.

¶130

9.Parties to act upon authenticated copy this

¶131

order.

¶132

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]

¶133

 [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]

¶134

ssp/Feb.19/ wp2013.19

¶135

8/ 8

Pathan Musaveer Khan Baktiyar Khan v. Maharashtra University of Health Science Nashik Though Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathan Musaveer Khan Baktiyar Khan v. Maharashtra University of Health Science Nashik Though Registrar and Others

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

Popat Laxman Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Venkat Yelleboinwad through Mashnaji Yeshwanta Yelleboinwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akash Chandrahas Surwase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anita Babanrao Rao and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dushyant Harishchandra Mate Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Its Chief Area Manager and Another

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-1,AURANGABAD Vs M/S. Shah Himmatlal Manilal and Co.