Disposed

Rohan S/O Santosh Parate v. the Committee for Verification of S.T.Certificates, Yavatmal, Thr. Member Secy. and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2024WP/5960/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court expressed displeasure over undue delay in deciding the petitioner's claim regarding an SBT certificate, which led to the loss of an educational seat. The court directed the Committee to prioritize student admission claims and dispose of the petitioner's request within two months, despite noting the petitioner's delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Scrutiny Committee to give preference to the petitioner's claim and decide within two months.

Rohan S/O Santosh Parate Vs the Committee for… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11231-DB

¶2

1 917-wp 5960.2024.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5960 OF 2024

¶5

( Rohan s/o Santosh Parate vs. The Committee for Verification of Scheduled Tribe Certificates, Yavatmal and another )

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Mr. K.S.Narwade, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2024

¶9

Regarding the grievance of the petitioner, we can only express our displeasure, as we have noted that the claim of the petitioner which is registered with the Scrutiny Committee on 17/01/2023 is yet undecided, resulting into deprivation of a seat allotted to him by the State Common Entrance Test Cell, as it was required to be cancelled, on account of non-production of the validity certificate. We also note that the claim of the petitioner was forwarded through G.S.Gawande College, Umarkhed, the College in which the petitioner was taking education on 15/11/2022 itself.

¶10

The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.Fulzele, has placed before us a communication dated 08/10/2024 from the Scrutiny Committee at Yavatmal informing that the Police Vigilance in the said case is pending and there are approximately 260 proceedings which are pending and therefore, four months time should be sought, for deciding the claim of the petitioner.

¶11

2 917-wp 5960.2024.odt

¶12

The petitioner has been frantically making correspondence to the Scrutiny Committee and one such request letter is filed at Annexure – E to the petition.

¶13

The Committee has informed us through the Additional Government Pleader that it is seized of multiple matters, but what we expect from the Committee is giving preference to the matters of the students, who are going to participate in the admission process for the academic year and all other general claims which are pending shall take a back seat for a while, but we do not see any sensitivity on the part of the Committee to segregate the claims and take quick decisions in respect of the claims in regards to the students.

¶14

In this case, we find fault of the petitioner also, as he has approached us in the month of September 2024 and to be the precise on 25/09/2024 when he had already lost his seat on account of non-production of validity certificate.

¶15

We therefore, are not in a position to render any assistance to the petitioner, except making a request to the Committee that it shall give preference to the claim of the petitioner and merely on the pretext that it has 260 matters pending before it, the case of the petitioner shall not be deferred and we expect the Committee to take a decision, within a period of two months from today.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

KOLHE

¶18

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )

¶19

( BHARATI DANGRE, J. )

Rohan S/O Santosh Parate v. the Committee for Verification of S.T.Certificates, Yavatmal, Thr. Member Secy. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohan S/O Santosh Parate v. the Committee for Verification of S.T.Certificates, Yavatmal, Thr. Member Secy. and Anr.

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

Umesh S/O Dinkar Uparikar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. Mumbai and Others

Rajendrasingh S/O Gopalsingh Chandel Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Public Health Department, Mumbai and Others

Sneha Tryambak Poharkar Vs Union of India, Thr. Commandant Recruitment, New Delhi and Another

Maha Mineral Mining and Benefication Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Authorised Signatory, Nagpur Vs Gram Panchayat, Gowari, Thr. Its Secretary, Chandrapur

Ramesh Shyamao Shinde and Others vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Late Shri Jayant Harkare Thr. His Lrs., Smt. Jayshree Wd/O Jayant Harkare and Ors. Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Marketing and Textile, Mumbai and Ors.