1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7342 OF 2005 Tejas s/o Dhananjay Garje, Age-18 years (Completed): Student, R/o- Plot No.13, Shalaka Apartment, New Shreya Nagar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, (Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Scheduled castes, Vimukta Jatis, OBCs and Special BCs Welfare Caste Certificate Verification Committee, (Through its Member Secretary and Divisional Social Welfare Officer) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3) The Director of Technical Education, MS Mumbai, 4) The Principal, Government Engineering College & Competent Authority for admissions to Engineering Courses, 2005, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 9TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 26th September, 2005 passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner is said to be engineering student. Under the orders passed by this Court dated 26th October 2005, the Petitioner was protected. 3. Shri. Talekar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner placed on 3 record reasonably good evidence to support his caste claim as "Banjara". It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the caste claim of the Petitioner. The counsel submits that subsequently, the Scrutiny Committee granted validity certificate in favour of sister, father and uncle of the Petitioner, which are placed on record. 4. Shri. Dighe, learned A.G.P. appearing for the Scrutiny Committee submits that the subsequent developments which have taken place, could not be a ground to claim validity, as the Petitioner failed to establish his case before the Scrutiny Committee. The learned A.G.P. submits that each case will have to be adjudged on the basis of the merits of each case. 5. No doubt, each case will have to be determined on the basis of merits and the evidence led by the candidate before the Scrutiny Committee. But at the same time, the validity 4 granted in favour of the sister, father and uncle of the Petitioner, as stated by the Petitioner, cannot be ignored. In this view of the matter and to be fair to the Petitioner, we find that an opportunity is required to be given to the Petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee will have to appreciate the case of the Petitioner in the light of the validity certificates granted in favour of the close relatives of the Petitioner. The matter needs to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee. 6. The impugned order dated 26th September, 2005 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee is entitled to call for the files of the relatives of the Petitioner like sister, father and uncle, whose validity certificates are relied upon by the Petitioner before this Court, and after considering the case and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the 5 Scrutiny Committee shall pass reasoned order in respect of the caste claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 30th August, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. The Petitioner is entitled to receive copy of vigilance cell report, which shall be served by the Committee on the Petitioner on 30th August, 2010. The Committee shall finally dispose of the caste claim of the Petitioner within three months from 30th August, 2010, on its own merits. 7. If the Petitioner is still studying as student, his admission shall not be cancelled for a period of four months from today. . Rule made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp7342.05