Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Kumari Gote Rutuja Sunil vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 September, 2014

Author: Anoop V. Mohta

Bench: Anoop V. Mohta

                                         1                            wp.7849-2014

    Dond
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                       
                      WRIT PETITION NO.7849 OF 2014


    Kumari Gote Rutuja Sunil,




                                                      
    Aged 19 years, Occup: Student,
    R/o Chate Galli, Mohol,
    Taluka Mohol, Dist. Solapur                                   ..Petitioner.

           Vs.




                                            
    1. State of Maharashtra
    through Social Justice Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
                          
    2. The Member Secretary,
    Schedule Tribe, Vimukta Jati, Nomadic Tribe
    Other Backward Class & Special Backward Class
    Committee No.1, Solapur
    Having office at Solapur, Dist. Solapur.
       


    3. Sub Divisional Officer,
    



    Mhada Division, Kurduwadi,
    Dist. Solapur.

    4. The Principal,





    N.B. Navle Sinhgad College of Engineering,
    Opposite Solapur University,
    Solapur-Pune National Highway,
    Kegaon, Solapur, Dist. Solapur.                               ..Respondents.
                                    ---





    Mr. J.G. Aradwad for the Petitioner.
    Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

                                     ---




                                                                                      1/ 3




                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2014 23:16:37 :::
                                          2                                wp.7849-2014


                                               CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND




                                                                                   
                                                       F.M. REIS, JJ.

                                               DATE      : 17 SEPTEMBER 2014.




                                                           
    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.):-

Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2 The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating caste certificate on the ground that as per then existing provisions the Petitioner has failed to prove that she belongs to "Lingayat Wani (OBC)".

3 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed on record the Government Circular dated 4.9.2014 whereby the amendment made to the O.B.C. list in State of Maharashtra and where at serial no.190 "Lingayat Wani" has been introduced as caste for all the benefits as Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate. Therefore by keeping all points open on the the sole ground as it goes to the root of the matter and that support the case of the Petitioner that she belongs to Lingayat Wani and entitled for all privilege and benefits in accordance with law, the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back for reconsideration based upon the Government Circular dated 4.9.2014 referring to Lingayat Wani at serial no.190 in the list annexed thereto.

2/ 3 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2014 23:16:37 :::

3 wp.7849-2014 4 The Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with law by giving opportunity to all the concerned. The Petitioner based upon the caste certificate "Wani" pursuing her study since 2012. The Petitioner's admission based upon the caste certificate is protected till final decision by the Scrutiny Committee and four weeks thereafter, if order is adversed to the Petitioner.

5

Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

    (F.M. REIS, J)                                      (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
       
    






                                                                                          3/ 3




                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2014 23:16:37 :::