Disposed

Ku. Dhanvi Sharad More v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Deptt. of Social Justice and Empowerment, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC20 Jan 2021WP/322/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PETitioner, an MBBS student, approached the Court for declaration of her result and expeditious decision on her ST claim by the Scrutiny Committee. The Court held that since the result had already been declared, that prayer was moot. The Court extended the time limit for the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim by another six months.

What did the court decide?

Scrutiny Committee directed to decide the pending caste claim within six months; extension granted with threat of heavy costs on breach; prayer for result dismissed as moot.

Ku. Dhanvi Sharad More Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

Order

2001wp322.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 322/2021.

¶6

Ku. Dhanvi Sharad More

¶7

….. Petitioner.

¶8

- VERSUS-

¶9

State of Maharashtra and others. ….. Respondents.

¶10

Shri P.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶11

Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶12

Shri A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 20 JANUARY 2021.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.

¶17

The Petitioner, a student who was pursuing her studies in MBBS has filed this petition for two reliefs. First, to direct the Respondent No.2 University to declare her result for 3^rd year MBBS and permit her to prosecute her further students.

Order

2001wp322.21

The second, to direct Respondent No.3 Scheduled Tribe Verification Scrutiny Committee, Amravati to decide Petitioners’ claim expeditiously.

¶22

As regards to withholding of result is concerned, our attention is drawn to order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21 September 2016 in Writ Petition No. 4608/2015 filed by the Petitioner. The Division Bench while disposing of the said Writ Petition had made the following observations :

¶23

“ In view of the statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, we all the Writ Petition. The respondent no.6 – Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within 15 months. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 are directed to protect the education of the petitioner till her caste claim is decided. That would mean that the petitioner may be permitted to attend the classes, appear at the examination and the result of the petitioner should be declared till her caste claim is decided, if there is no impediment in doing so.”

¶24

Therefore, till the caste claim is to be decided, it was clear that the result ought not to have been withheld. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent University has declared the result yesterday, and therefore, this prayer does not survive.

Order

2001wp322.21

As far as the direction to Scrutiny Committee is concerned, the Scrutiny Committee was directed, as far as back in September 2016, to decide the caste claim within 15 months, however, till date the caste claim has not been decided. The learned Counsel for Respondent Committee states that 6 months further period be granted for said purpose. While we grant this extension by way of indulgence, we put Respondent Scrutiny Committee to notice that any breach to adhering to this time limit would entail to imposition of heavy costs.

¶29

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of by directing Respondent Scrutiny Committee to decide the pending caste claim of the Petitioner within a period of six months from today.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)

(NITIN JAMDAR, J)

Rgd

Digitally signed by Rakesh Rakesh Dhuriya Date: 2021.01.25 Dhuriya 12:45:31 +0530

Ku. Dhanvi Sharad More v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Deptt. of Social Justice and Empowerment, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Dhanvi Sharad More v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Deptt. of Social Justice and Empowerment, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil S/O Sakharam Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Tribal Development Dept. Mumbai and Others

M/S Agrawal Construction, Nagpur through Their Sole Prop. Shri Keshav Agrawal Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Nagpur and Another

Sangita Sushilkumar Agrawal and Another Vs National Highways Auth. of India, Thr. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Other

Mamta W/O Ratnakar Gaikwad (Asha D/O Champat Dhok) Vs the Vice-Chairman/Member-Sec. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Others

Dr. Satish P. Punse Vs Shri. Shivaji Education Sanstha Thr. President and Others

Jayendra S/O Kirtikumar Shah Vs Union of India, through Its Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi and 3 Others