(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5619 of 2009 (WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11629/2009) Vijayalaxmi d/o Hirenath Salikar, Age : 20 years, Occu. Education, r/o Omerga, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2. The Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Aurangabad, Division Latur, Dist.Latur. 3. Pune University, at Pune, Dist. Pune. 4. Annasaheb Gopalrao Awate College of Engineering, Manjari Road, Hadapsar, Pune Through its Principal. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.P.B.Rakhunde, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Adv., for respondent no.2. Mr. S.V.Natu, Adv., for respondent no.4. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP, for respondent State. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2009. (2) PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a student of a private Engineering College, respondent no.4. According to the petitioner, she was admitted in the Engineering Course in the year 2006. 3. The proposal of her caste verification was forwarded by the College, namely, Chatrapati Shivaji College, Omerga, on 19.7.2006. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, respondent no.2, by an order dt.1.7.2009, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Samgar, a Scheduled Caste in Karnataka which, according to the petitioner, is synonymous with Chambhar, a Scheduled Caste, which is recognized in the State of Maharashtra. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a migrant from Karnataka State after the year 1999. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee as it is erroneous, lacks proper reasoning and is passed without hearing the petitioner. 6. A Civil Application is filed by the petitioner. Based on the same, learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner is taking education in the Fourth Year of the Engineering Course in - (3) respondent College and, in the interest of justice and fairness, the petitioner's admission be protected and, in absence whereof, the petitioner would incur monetary loss and would suffer in her career. It was further submitted that there was delay on the part of the Scrutiny Committee in deciding the proposal of the petitioner, for which the petitioner shall not be penalized. This argument is advanced in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Category ( Regulation and Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ( For short, "Act of 2000") and the submissions advanced on behalf of the Counsel, appearing for the respondent Committee that, no sooner the petitioner's caste verification claim is invalidated, the petitioner would lose all the privileges, which are enjoyed by her under the caste certificate issued in her favour as Scheduled caste candidate irrespective of whether the petitioner is pursuing her studies in the Engineering College or not. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 2009 (4) ALL M.R. 934 ( Sau.Kusum V. State of Maharashtra) and and 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 754 (Jyoti Pralhad Sangle V. State of Maharashtra). (4) 8. Learned Counsel Shri B.L.Sagar appearing for the Committee submitted that the issue, which the petitioner is raising now, is no more res integra. The petitioner is not entitled in law to utilize the benefits by continuing in the Engineering Course as a Scheduled Caste candidate. 9. Placing reliance on the provisions of the Act of 2000 and the reported judgment of Full Bench judgment in the case of Ganesh Rambhau Khalale V. State of Maharashtra and others ( 2009(1) Bom C.R. 689) and the Apex Court judgment in the case of Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi V. State of Maharashtra ( 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 658), learned Counsel submitted that, as the petitioner has failed to establish her caste, she is not entitled to derive any benefits, as a Scheduled Caste candidate. 10. On merits, learned Counsel Mr. B.L.Sagar for the respondent Committee pointed out that whatever material was placed before the Committee was looked into and a reasoned order was passed by the Committee. The Committee's order is in tune with the settled principles of law and, therefore, on merits there is absolutely no challenge to the order passed by the Committee. 11. We have perused the judgments cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The provisions of the Act of 2000 and more particularly, Section 10 are very clear. The Full Bench of this Court ( cited supra) considered the issue which is (5) raised by the petitioner before us. In the light of the view adopted by the Full Bench of this Court and the Apex Court ( cited supra), we find that no relief could be granted to the petitioner permitting her to continue her studies with respondent no.4 as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is informed to this court that respondent no.4 is a private Engineering College. 12. We do not find that there is any error in the view of the respondent Committee. In view of the facts of the case, it is a reasoned order. There is no merit in the petition and the Civil Application. Both are dismissed accordingly. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL, J.] ... agp/wp5619-09