Bombay High Court
Pradip Bhimrao Rajput vs The Divisionla Caste Scrutiny Amravati ... on 15 November, 2016
Author: V. M. Deshpande
Bench: B. R. Gavai, V. M. Deshpande
1 wp4867.05.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4867/2015
Pradip s/o Bhimrao Rajput
aged about 19 years, Occ. Student,
r/o Chandur Biswa, Tahsil Nandura,
District Buldana. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Rathi Nagar, Amravati.
2.
P. Wadhwani College of Pharmacy,
Yavatmal, through its President.
3. Director of Technical Education,
Mumbai.
4. Amravati University, Amravati,
through its Registrar. ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N. S. Rao, A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.
DATED :-
NOVEMBER 15, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V. M. Deshpande, J.)
1. Heard Mr. P. B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. S. Rao, learned A.G.P. for the State. Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4 chose to remain absent when the matter was called out for final hearing.
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2016 00:37:32 :::2 wp4867.05.odt
2. In the present petition, originally prayer was for quashing the order dated 06.06.2005 passed by respondent no.1 whereby the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta a Vimukta Jati was disallowed. During the pendency of the present petition, the petition was amended and the amended prayer clause is (d1) by which only the protection of his education is claimed by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta.
He was desirous of having admission in the respondent no.2-College in the Pharmacy stream and accordingly he was admitted. The caste certificate of the petitioner was referred by the principal of the College whereat the petitioner was taking his education in the 12 th standard to the respondent no.1 for its verification.
4. From the record, it appears that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent no.1 vide order dated 24.02.2002 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved thereby, a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.966/2005 was filed before this Court by the petitioner and this Court set aside the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide judgment dated ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2016 00:37:32 ::: 3 wp4867.05.odt 11.04.2005 and remanded the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
After having remanded the matter, the petitioner again appeared before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Committee vide the impugned order, rejected his claim.
5. Since the petitioner has restricted his claim only for the protection of the education which he has undertaken on the basis of the caste claim, this Court refrains itself from going into merits of the matter. Insofar as the aspect of protection is concerned, the said issue is no more res integra in view of the Larger Bench decision of this Court in Arun Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others;
2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 457.
6. The petitioner, who was admitted in the B. Farm. in the respondent no.2 College in the year 2004 has already completed his education in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 20.04.2006. Since the petitioner has already completed his education, the said seat would not be available to any other person.
Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that after completion of his education, the petitioner is employed ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2016 00:37:32 ::: 4 wp4867.05.odt private sector in the open category. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the impugned order, which does not speak about element of fraud on the part of the petitioner.
7. In that view of the matter, and more particularly in view of the judgment in the case of Arun Sonwane (cited supra), we pass the following order.
ig O R D E R The petition is rejected insofar as challenge to the order of respondent no.1 is concerned. However, the petition is allowed to the extent that the studies undertaken by the petitioner for Pharmacy course shall stand protected. Except this protection, we make it clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any benefit available to Vimukta Jati being Rajput Bhamta.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (B. R. Gavai, J.)
kahale
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2016 00:37:32 :::