1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6445 OF 2009 Kumari Shital d/o Dattatrya Thakar, Age : 18 years, Occ. Student, R/o Halli, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 Through its Secretary 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary 3. The Director of Medical Education & Research, CET Cell, St. George's Hospital Compound, Opp. Govt. Dental College Building, Near Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST), Mumbai-400001 4. Government Ayurvedic College, Nanded Through its Dean ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents no.1, 3 & 4; Mr R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ 2 DATE : 5th October 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. At the outset, Shri A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for the reliefs at prayer clause (C) and (D) and consequently seeks to withdraw the petition in respect of the aforesaid prayer clauses. Accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D). 2.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. We have heard Shri A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondents no.1, 3 and 4 and Shri R.P. Phatke, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. 4. According to the petitioner, the caste claim of the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondent - Scrutiny Committee since 27.11.2007. Meanwhile, it is stated before us that the petitioner has been granted admission and consequently the petitioner has not pressed the petition in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D). Since the claim of the petitioner is pending 3 consideration with the respondent - scrutiny Committee, we are inclined to allow this petition to the limited extent of directing the respondent - Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly we allow this petition and direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 7.11.2009 and further direct the Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within six months of 7.11.2009. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp6445.09 4 WRIT PETITION NO.6445 OF 2009 Date of decision : 5th OCTOBER, 2009 For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A. V. POTDAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [ Anant Joshi ] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge