1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2743 of 2004 [Ku.Shubhangi Dinesh Wankhade Vs. State of Mah. & two ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 3. Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Adv., for respondent no.2. Mrs. T.D. Khade, Adv., for respondent no.4. ------ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 2nd September, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. Adv. Mr. Parsodkar for petitioner states that the issue of affinity squarely arises in this matter. He points out that all documents tendered by petitioner show her caste as Thakur , and the petitioner has been held to be a non-Scheduled Tribe candidate by applying affinity test. He further states that at the relevant time, as the view of Division Bench of this Court in case of Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar Vs. State of Maharashtra [2004 (1) 2 Mh.L.J. 177] was prevailing, the petitioner was not advised to lead any positive evidence to show affinity. However, there being a reversal of that view by Hon ble Apex Court vide its Judgment delivered in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ravi Prakash Parmar [2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 250], the petitioner could be given an opportunity to lead such evidence and to argue the point thereafter. 3. Learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Adv. Mrs. Deshpande for respondent no.2 and Adv. Mrs. Khade for respondent no.4 are opposing the request. They contend that appropriate opportunity to lead evidence was already given to petitioner. 4. As the above developments in the field of law are not in dispute, we find it appropriate to permit the petitioner to have an opportunity to lead evidence before Scrutiny Committee to bring on record affinity. For this purpose, the impugned order dated 18th June, 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside and matter is restored back to the file of respondent no.2- Scrutiny Committee for taking a fresh decision as per law after hearing the petitioner. As the matter is old, the decision be taken as early as possible, and in any case by 31st July, 2010. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 05th October, 2009, and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. Rule 3 accordingly. No costs. 5. At this stage, learned Adv. Mr. Parsodkar points out that the result of petitioner for Third-year MBBS [Part-II] examination conducted in June-July, 2008 has not been declared so far. 6. In view of this order, respondent nos. 3 and 4 are directed to declare that result provisionally and without prejudice to their contentions. Said declaration of result and performance of petitioner in examination shall be subject to orders of Scrutiny Committee in present matter. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4