1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6199 OF 2010 Anita d/o Madhukar Wanare, Age 18 years, Occu.Education, R/o Aadgaon, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Directorate of Medical Education and Research, CET Cell, Opp.Govt. Dental College & Hospital Building, St.George’s Hospital Compound, Near CST Railway Station, Mumbai 400 001 3. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, for O.B.C., N.T., S.C. and S.B.C., Aurangabad 4. Government Medical College, Aurangabad through its Dean ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6202 OF 2010 Dnyaneshwar s/o Digambar Dhondse, Age 18 years, Occu.Education, R/o Aadgaon, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani .. PETITIONER VERSUS 2 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Directorate of Medical Education and Research, CET Cell, Opp.Govt. Dental College & Hospital Building, St.George’s Hospital Compound, Near CST Railway Station, Mumbai 400 001 3. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, for O.B.C., N.T., S.C. and S.B.C., Aurangabad 4. Government Medical College, Aurangabad through its Dean ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 14th July 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Since the relief prayed for in both these petitions is similar, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. At the outset, Mr.Thombre, learned Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner does not press for the relief at prayer clause (C) in both the petitions but restricts the scope of the petition insofar as reliefs at prayer clause (B) to the petition are concerned. Hence, Rule. Rule returnable 3 forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions are being decided finally at the stage of admission. 3. Undisputedly, the last date for submission of the proposal to the respondent – scrutiny committee for verification of the caste/tribe of the student was 30th June 2010. Undisputedly also the petitioners did not submit the proposal within time and consequently, the proposals of the petitioners have been returned back by the scrutiny committee. According to us, the aforesaid action of the respondents would visit the petitioners with severe consequences as the petitioners are likely to be deprived of taking admission in other educational institutions etc. The entire year of the petitioners would be virtually wasted and the petitioners would be required to submit the proposals in the next year. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to allow these petitions insofar as relief at prayer clause (B) is concerned. Accordingly, we allow these petitions insofar as relief at prayer clause (B) is concerned and direct the scrutiny committee to accept the proposals of the petitioners, if submitted/forwarded within two weeks from today. The petitioners to appear before the Committee on 4th August 2010 and the respondent – scrutiny committee to decide the proposals of the petitioners within six months of 4th August 2010. 4 Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/6199-6202.10wp)