{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3416 OF 2009 Bhagyashri Dilip Patil R/o Donde Colony, Sainagar Amrawat, Tq & Dist-Amrawati PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Class, Vimukta Jati, Nomadic Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nashik Division-2 Head Quarter at Dhule Kanushri Tower, 10, Badgujar Plot Parola Road, Dhule 3. The Principal Shri Hanuman Vidya Prasarak Mandal’s College of Engineering and Technology, H.V.P.M. Campus, Hanuman Vyayam Nagar Amrawati, Dist-Amrawati 4. Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Class, Vimukta Jati, Nomadic Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Amrawati Division, Amrawati Through its Member Secretary RESPONDENTS ....... {2} Mr.A.D.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 8th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner seeks leave to join “Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Class, Vimukta Jati and Nomadic Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Amrawati Division, Amrawati” as respondent to the petition. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the newly added respondent. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner, who came to be admitted to first year Engineering Course on a seat which was reserved for candidates belonging to Vimukta Jatis, is in receipt of a communication from the respondent institute intimating that the admission given to the petitioner was likely to be canceled on account of failure of the {3} petitioner to produce the validity certificate. This being the subject matter of the present petition, we consider it appropriate to hear and decide this petition finally at the stage of admission. 4. The petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati), had his said claim referred to the Committee in the year 2007 and since then the same is pending consideration before the respondent Scrutiny Committee. Mr.B.L. Sagar Killarikar, learned counsel for the respondent scrutiny committee states that recently the entire record has been transferred to the Amrawati committee. Learned counsel for the scrutiny committee has very fairly accepted notice on behalf of the committee to ensure that there is no further delay in the adjudication of the claim by the committee. Since the claim of the petitioner is pending consideration before the committee, according to us, issuance of the aforesaid letter is wholly unwarranted. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. However, in order to ensure that the claim of the petitioner is expeditiously decided, we direct the petitioner to appear before the newly added respondent Scrutiny Committee at Amrawati on 23rd September 2009 and further direct the committee at Amrawati to decide the claim of the petitioner within 6 months from 23.09.2009, in accordance with law. The order impugned in the present petition i.e. communication dated 22.05.2009 is unsustainable and is, therefore, quashed. 5. In the result, therefore, this petition succeeds and the {4} impugned communication dated 22.05.2009 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee at Amrawati on 23.09.2009 and the committee is further directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within 6 months of 23.09.2009. We however, direct the College that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Committee no adverse action of cancellation of the admission of the petitioner / withholding result of the petitioner, be taken solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce validity certificate. Admission, etc. if any, granted to the petitioner would always be subject to the result of the decision of the committee. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp3416-09