Dismissed

Sarika J.Pingale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Jun 2019WP/2090/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of multiple writ petitions concerning OBC caste certificates as infructuous because similar earlier petitions seeking relief on the creamy layer issue were already dismissed. The Court clarified that degrees obtained by petitioners are valid, though future employment eligibility depends on income verification.

What did the court decide?

Petitions declared infructuous; degrees obtained by petitioners declared valid.

Sarika J.Pingale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(214-222) WP 2062-02 & ors

¶2

Amk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2062 OF 2002

¶5

Master Bharat Jagdishbhai Darji (Minor) through his natural guardian father Mr. Jagdishbhai R. Dargji .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

Mr. Abhay Patki for the Petitioner. Mr. G. W. Mattos, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 2066 OF 2002

¶9

Kinjal Jitendra Suthar since minor through her Natural guardian Father Mr. Jitendra Suthar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶10

None for Petitioner. Mr. Abhay Patki, AGP for State.

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 2087 OF 2002

¶13

Snehal L. Sadvarte .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶14

None for Petitioner. Mr. Abhay Patki, AGP for State.

¶15

1/5

¶16

(214-222) WP 2062-02 & ors

¶17

WITH

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO. 2090 OF 2002

¶19

Miss Sarika Jagannath Pingale .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .. Respondents

¶20

Mr. Abhay Patki for petitioner. Mr. G. W. Mattos, AGP for State.

¶21

WITH

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 2118 OF 2002

¶23

Sushil Sunil Hatkar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

¶24

None for petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State.

¶25

WITH

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO. 2102 OF 2002

¶27

Master Mandar Madhukar Wadkar (Minor) through his natural guardian father Mr. Madhukar Wadkar .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶28

Mr. Abhay Patki for petitioner.

¶29

Ms. Poornima Kantharia, Govt. Pleader a/w Ms. Deepali Patankar, Assistant to Govt. Pleader for State.

¶30

2/5

¶31

(214-222) WP 2062-02 & ors

¶32

WITH

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO. 2107 OF 2002

¶34

Yogesh Vijay Mhadnak .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents None for Petitioner. Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for State.

¶35

WITH

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO. 2122 OF 2002

¶37

Miss. Tejal Anil Kolekar (Minor) thorugh her natural guardian father Mr. Anil Shivram Kolekar .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶38

Mr. Abhay Patki for petitioner. Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for State.

¶39

WITH

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO. 2347 OF 2002

¶41

Prakash Kanhaiyalal Gupta .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents

¶42

None for Petitioner.

¶43

Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, AGP for State.

¶44

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2391 OF 2002

¶45

Mr. Fahad Anis Ahmed Ansari .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶46

None for Petitioner.

¶47

Ms. Poornima Kantharia, Govt. Pleader a/w Ms. Deepali Patankar, Assistant to Govt. Pleader for State.

¶48

3/5

¶49

(214-222) WP 2062-02 & ors

¶50

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 4 th JUNE, 2019.

¶51

P. C. :

¶52

Petitioners in the captioned Petitions approached this Court on account of the fact that they were issued Caste Certificate to the effect that they were members of OBC but since the concept of a creamy layer was introduced by the Supreme Court's requiring benefits to be granted to only such OBCs who were withheld the prescribed income limit, creamy layer certificates were not being issued to them.

¶53

By way of interim order, they were permitted to be admitted to pursue academic courses as OBC category applicants pending verification of the income limit of the family.

¶54

The Petitioners have completed their course and neither the Counsel for the Petitioner nor the Respondents have any information on the issue.

¶55

Similar Petition Nos.2057 of 2002 and Petition No. 2058 of 2002 were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.11.2018 treating the Writ Petitions to have been rendered infructuous.

¶56

4/5

¶57

(214-222) WP 2062-02 & ors

¶58

We likewise dispose of the Petitions as infructuous.

¶59

We clarify that the degree obtained by the Petitioners would not be treated as invalid degree. Needless to state that if the Petitioners were to seek employment as OBC candidate, the issue of limit of income of the family to determine whether they are within the creamy layer limit or not would be considered by the authorities.

¶60

[N. M. JAMDAR, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶61

5/5

Sarika J.Pingale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarika J.Pingale v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Rosalie Lx Co. Operative Housing Soc. Ltd. through Secretary Mr. Sunil Ghegade Vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Manoj Ganpat Gidde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nandkishor Ramrao Goley Vs President/Secretary, Mumbai Pradesh Arya Vidya Sabha and Ors.

Universal Education Trust Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Brihanmumbai Mahapalika Shikshak Sabha Vs B.M.C.and Anr.