( 1 ) WP 1220/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1220 OF 2011 1 Yuvraj s/o Khandu Hanmante, Age 20 years, Occupation Education, R/o. Nursing Boys Hostel, Shivaji Nagar, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. PETITIONERS 2 Mrunali d/o Machindra Shinde, Age 18 years, Occupation Education, R/o. R.H. No.A-49, Sector Deogiri Vally, Mitmita, Aurangabad. 3 Vaishali d/o Manohar Wakte, Age 22 years, Occupation Education, R/o. Milind Nagar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 4 Yashoda d/o Piraji More, Age 18 years, Occupation Education, R/o. Brijwadi, M.I.D.C. Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. 5 Suvarna d/o Dinkar Gaikwad, Age 19 years, Occupation Education, R/o. Beed, Taluka and District Beed. 6 Rita d/o Ranjeet Misal, Age 19 years, Occupation Education, R/o. New Hanuman Nagar, Aurangabad. 7 Gokul s/o Revan Parable, Age 18 years, Occupation Education, R/o. Nandur (Ghat), Taluka Kaij, District Beed. 8 Chhaya d/o Vitthal Ambhore, Age 18 years, Occupation Education, R/o. Ashti, Taluka Partur, District Jalna. V E R S U S 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. RESPONDENTS ( 2 ) WP 1220/11 2 The Special Social Welfare Officer, Office of the Social Welfare Kileark, Behind Government Arts and Science College, Aurangabad. 3 The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, Near CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad, Through its Secretary. 4 The Maharashtra University of Health Science, Wani Raod, Mhasrul, Nashik 422 004 5 The Principal Shiva Trust’s Aurangabad Training College of Nursing Sania Chambers, Seven Hills Near Over Bridge, Jalna Road, Aurangabad 431 005. Mr. N.D. Sonavane, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. G.R. Ingole-Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 / State Mr. K.D. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi, Adv. h/f Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for respondent No.5 CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE,JJ. DATED : 16th March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per D.B. Bhosale, J. ) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have made the following prayers : B) Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 5 Shiva Trust’s Aurangabad ( 3 ) WP 1220/11 Training College of Nursing, Aurangabad to submit the proposals of the petitioners for validity of their caste claims to respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 to submit the same to the respondent No. 3 caste validity scrutiny committee and respondent No. 3 to decide the caste claims of the petitioners as early as possible in accordance with law. C) Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 4 Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik to accept the proposals of enrolment and eligibility of the petitioners and accept their examination forms to enable the petitioners to appear for forthcoming first year B.Sc. Nursing examination. D) Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 20.11.2010 issued by the respondent No. 4 Maharashtra University of Health Science Nashik and the communication dated 6.12.2010 issued by respondent No. 5 Shiva Trust’s Aurangabad Training College of Nursing, Aurangabad.” 3. The petitioners have taken admission for B. Sc. Nursing Course for the academic year 2010-11 and their first year nursing examination is due in May, 2011. It appears that immediately after admission the petitioners submitted their caste certificates along with supporting documents to respondent No.5 - College. The petitioners contend that College authorities did not forward their caste certificates to respondent No. 2 – the Special Social Welfare Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was obligatory on the part of education ( 4 ) WP 1220/11 institution to forward their caste certificates for validation to the Special Social Welfare Officer, who, in turn, is obliged to forward the same to Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation. Since the college authorities, according to the petitioners, did not forward their caste certificates for validation to respondent No. 3, they have not received validity certificates till this date. We do not wish to enter into the reasons as to why college authorities did not forward petitioners’ proposals to respondent No. 2. The fact remains and it is not disputed that the College authorities did not forward the petitioners proposals to respondent No.2. In the meanwhile, it appears that respondent No. 4 – University has issued communication dated 20th November, 2010, stating that the petitioners cannot be registered as students for the B.Sc. Nursing Course since they did not submit validity certificates within time. 4. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the prayers in the writ petition so also the impugned communication, we are satisfied that the petitioners cannot be blamed for not forwarding their proposals / caste certificates to respondent No. 2 by the college authorities. We would also not like to make any observation against the college authorities, since we are not entering into the reasons as to why the college authorities did not forward the petitioners’ proposals to respondent No.2. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case that the following order will meet the ends of justice. ( 5 ) WP 1220/11 O R D E R i) Respondent No. 5 – College shall forward proposals / caste certificates of the petitioners to respondent No. 2 within a period of two weeks from today. We hope and trust that respondent No. 2 shall forward the same to respondent No. 3 – Scrutiny Committee immediately thereafter. ii) The Scrutiny Committee shall decide the caste claims of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the proposals. It is open to the respondent – College to seek compliance, if any, from the petitioners, for forwarding their proposals to respondent No. 2 within the stipulated time. If the petitioners do not co- operate in making compliance of the formalities, if any, respondent – College shall inform the petitioners in writing stating the reason as to why his / their proposal is not forwarded to respondent No. 3, as per the orders of the Court, within a period of one week from the date of expiry of the period of two weeks. Iii) Respondent No. 4 shall accept examination forms of all the petitioners and allow them to appear for first year B.Sc. Nursing Examination, subject to decision of the Scrutiny Committee in respect of their caste claims. The University may declare result of the petitioners subject to the decision of their caste claims by ( 6 ) WP 1220/11 respondent No. 3 – Scrutiny Committee. iv) In the circumstances, the impugned communication dated 20th November, 2010 renders ineffective. v) Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. No order as to costs. Parties to act upon the copy duly authenticated by Sheristedar of this Court. ( A. V. NIRGUDE,J. ) ( D.B. BHOSALE,J. ) SRM/wp/1220/11/16/3/11