Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated May 27, 2011 passed by the respondent no.5-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (for short, 'the respondent no.5-Committee') whereby the claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe came to be invalidated. The petitioner has further prayed for 0407WP1927-14.odt 2 Judgment issuance of directions to the respondents thereby ordering protection to the petitioner in her education to pursue studies in M.D. Anesthesia as a scheduled tribe candidate on an undertaking that she will not claim any benefit of belonging to a scheduled tribe.

0407WP1927-14.odt 5 Judgment The counsel for the petitioner would further urge that the petitioner is willing to deposit the difference of fees for her Degree and Post- Graduation courses as she had got admission against a seat reserved for the candidates belonging to the scheduled tribe category. He would claim that the petitioner is willing to give an undertaking that she shall not be claiming any benefit of belonging to 'Halba' scheduled tribe in future. So as to substantiate such contention, the counsel for the petitioner would draw support from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ku.Juhi Pravinkumar Meshram Versus Joint Commissioner & Vice-Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati [Writ Petition No.6937 of 2017] decided on June 07, 2019. In addition, he would draw support from the judgment in the matter of Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Others Versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Others [2017(4) Mh.L.J. 898 (SC)] so as to claim that the petitioner is entitled for protection of her admission. Further contention is the judgment in the matter of Jagdish Bahira & Others (supra) would operate prospectively as has been observed by this Court in Ku.Sangita Ramdas Bahirseth (Sau.Sangita Tarachand Barwad) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others [Writ Petition No. 631 of 2020] decided on September 29, 2023. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that on merits also the caste claim of the petitioner can be said to be justified as that of belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe as the respondent no.5-Committee has failed to record any reasons thereby establishing the relationship with the adverse caste holders. He would 0407WP1927-14.odt 6 Judgment further claim that in the Presidential Order, caste 'Halba' is recorded at Serial Number 19 whereas 'Koshti' not being a caste, said word needs to be excluded to the benefit of the petitioner thereby inferring that the petitioner's claim as that of belonging to 'Halba' scheduled tribe is quite justified. The counsel for the petitioner would draw support from the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.17179-17180/2021 [Saurabh Versus State of Maharashtra & Others ] so as to establish the claim of the petitioner for grant of protection and release of all the certificates. Similarly, he would draw support from the judgment of this Court in Umashankar Kashiram Daheriya Versus Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University & Another [Writ Petition No. 6181 of 2019].

6. As against this, Shri N.S. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Shri J.B. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-University would strenuously oppose the claim. Both these counsel would urge that from day one of the admission, the petitioner was aware about the fact of she not belonging to 'Halba' scheduled tribe. So as to substantiate the said contention, our attention was invited to the prayer clause wherein the petitioner has prayed for granting protection of education as a scheduled tribe category candidate on an undertaking that she shall not be claiming any benefit of belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe in future. Both these counsel would urge that from day one, the petitioner's admission to various courses was provisional. The said fact 0407WP1927-14.odt 7 Judgment was well within her knowledge as the documents placed on record depicts that after she had passed the H.S.S.C. examination in 1998, she was admitted to M.B.B.S. first year course in July-1999.

0407WP1927-14.odt 9 Judgment The petitioner has failed to discharge the burden under Section 8 of the Act of 2000 thereby not only demonstrating but also establishing that she belongs to 'Halba' scheduled tribe. That being so, from very inception the intention of the petitioner was to draw undeserving advantage to which in law she was not entitled. Since from the very inception the claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe was doubtful, this Court always made an order of granting admission provisionally.