Bombay High CourtWP/1729/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Sandhyarani Shankarrao Pupalwar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2016-02-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice R. M. Borde,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A. I. S. Cheema3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2016 Komal d/o Dattatraya Bhosale .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.M. Vibhute, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. B.V. Virdhe, AGP for the State.

Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1729 OF 2016 Sandhyarani d/o Shankarrao Pupalwar .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.M. Vibhute, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. B.V. Virdhe, AGP for the State.

Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1730 OF 2016 Shweta d/o Madhavrao shingarwad .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.M. Vibhute, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. B.V. Virdhe, AGP for the State.

Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no. 3.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1731 OF 2016 Prashant s/o Narsimlu Mokmod .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.M. Vibhute, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. B.V. Virdhe, AGP for the State.

Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1732 OF 2016 Seema d/o Diliprao Kurewad .. PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.M. Vibhute, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. B.V. Virdhe, AGP for the State.

Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE : 10th FEBRUARY, 2016.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

Petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe category and have been admitted to medical course as against the seat earmarked for the aforesaid reserved category. The tribe certificates issued to petitioners have been tendered for verification to the Scrutiny Committee and the proposals are

pending. This Court has already issued directions on 26.06.2015 to the Scrutiny Committee to take decision on the proposals within a period of one year. In the meanwhile, the University has directed the concerned colleges not to accept application forms for examination from petitioners since they have failed to tender validation certificate. Petitioners, apprehending that they would be debarred from appearing the examination, have approached this Court seeking protection order.

3.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no. 2 is directed to accept and forward examination forms pertaining to petitioners to respondent no. 3 - University and, the University is directed to permit petitioners to appear for the examination. Since direction has already been issued to the Scrutiny Committee to take decision on the tribe certificate validation proposals, no further orders are necessary in that regard. 4.

With directions as above, writ petitions stand disposed of. ( A.I.S. CHEEMA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb