Anusaya Narsingh Khadke v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 4 WRIT PETITION NO.611 OF 2020 WITH CA/7237/2021 IN WP/611/2020 ANUSAYA NARSINGH KHADKE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Biradar R.D. Biradar AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. A.R. Joshi ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 31st JULY, 2021 PER COURT:- 1.

By this petition, the petitioner has put-forth prayer clause-B and C which read as under:

"B.

Kindly be quash and set aside order dt.21/11/2019 passed by the Respondent No.4.

C.

Kindly be directed to Respondent No.4 to issue certifcate of Maharashtra State EliVibility Test MMH-SET) in favour of petitioner."

2.

A short issue emerVes from this petition which is, 'whether the petitioner can be treated to be belonVinV to a reserved cateVory without any caste certifcate beinV issued by any competent authority within the State of Maharashtra, on the basis of a caste certifcate issued by the State of Karnataka.' However, neither the caste certifcate is placed on record before us thouVh this petition is pendinV since December 2019, nor has the petitioner even whispered in the memo of the petition as to which is the caste to which she belonVs. This missinV

(2) details are enouVh for us to dismiss the petition. 3.

Be that as it may, the reliance placed by the petitioner on Government Resolution dated 10.07.2008 issued by the General Administration, State of Maharashtra pertaininV to the residents of 865 villaVes who are Marathi speakinV persons, situated on the Maharashtra - Karnataka border, is totally misconceived. The said Vovernment resolution is with reVard to the employment opportunities to be made available to such Marathi speakinV candidates who are residents of 865 villaVes within the State of Karnataka and which are situated on the Maharashtra - Karnataka border. The Vovernment resolution allows such candidates to apply for employments if they can produce a domicile certifcate indicatinV that they have been residinV for more than 15 years in any of these 865 villaVes. This Vovernment resolution has nothinV to do with the petitioner purportedly belonVinV to a reserved cateVory under the State of Karnataka and failinV to produce any caste certifcate from the State of Maharashtra.

4.

We called upon the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned AGP to point out any Vovernment resolution which would permit such persons residinV in 865 villaVes borderinV the Maharashtra - Karnataka States, to produce a caste certifcate showinV them to be belonVinV to a reserved cateVory, issued by a competent authority of the State of Karnataka, which could be entertained by the State of Maharashtra for presumption that the same reservation beneft available in the State of Karnataka would be made available to such candidates in the State of Maharashtra. Both the learned counsel submit

(3) that there is no such Vovernment resolution which has been issued by the State of Maharashtra.

5.

The petitioner has then voiced a Vrievance that thouVh she has appeared for her SET examination conducted by the Savitribai Phule Pune University on 23.06.2019, her result has still not been declared. Shri Joshi, the learned advocate appearinV on behalf of the University submits on specifc instructions that the result of the SET exam has already been declared and the petitioner herself has placed the said result on record at paVe no.12 of the petition paper book. She has passed the SET examination. PaVe no.12 is a screen shot imaVe saved to the Vallery and which has been produced before us by way of a print out. 6.

Shri Joshi has relied upon the Updated Notifcation for 35th MH-SET for Assistant Professorship. The said notifcation was with reVard to the examination to be conducted on 23.06.2019 by Savitribai Phule Pune University for the States of Maharashtra and Goa. Clause-E of the conditions of eliVibility clearly states that "The candidates of other States (other than Maharashtra and Goa) belonging to reserved categories shall be treated as Open category, as per the rules of the Maharashtra and Goa States."

7.

ConsiderinV the above recorded facts, we do not fnd that the petitioner has made out a case for exercisinV our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayers put-forth by the petitioner cannot be accepted since this petition sans merit. 8.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the

(4) followinV observations:

a) Respondent no.4, the Co-ordinator SET Examination Unit of the Pune University would provide a hard copy of the SET examination passinV certifcate alonV with the marks memo to the petitioner, subject to payment of the requisite fees by the petitioner. b) Since the rules do not prescribe, we are not passinV an order directinV the University to treat the petitioner as belonVinV to a reserved cateVory.

9.

In view of the above, the pendinV civil application does not survive and stands disposed of. Nevertheless, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for Ph.D Entrance Exam, if she is eliVible to appear for the said examination as per the rules of the Savitribai Phule Pune University. (S.G. MEHARE. J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J) Mujaheed//