1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO:1958/ 2008 (Ku.Mayuri d/o Manohar Bende vs. State of Maharashtra and others) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D. SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 05th August, 2008. *** Heard Mr. R K Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner; Mr. D P Thakare, learned AGP for Respondents 1 and 3 and Mr. Nitin Sambre, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 27.03.2008 whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Halba” Scheduled Tribe, came to be invalidated. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee primarily relied upon the entries of caste mentioned in Dakhila Kharij Register of the school in respect of grandfather of the petitioner and his brother namely, Mahadeo Maruti and Shyamrao Maruti wherein the caste of these persons is mentioned as “Koshti” and occupation as “weavers”'. These entries are of the year 1937 and 1941 respectively. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the Dakhila Kharij register extract 2 are obtained by the Vigilance Cell from the concerned school, does not mention the surname either of petitioner's grandfather or his brother. It is further contended that the applicant has specifically disputed that these entries are in respect of his grandfather or his brother. It is also pointed out that the evidence of the Head Mistress of the school shows that the original record in respect of these entries was not available and the surnames are also not mentioned in the Dakhila Kharij register extract. It is, therefore, contended that the evidence relied on by the Scrutiny Committee in order to invalidate the caste claim of the petitioner is not proper and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 5. Mr. Nitin Sambre, learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Committee, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner has filed reply to the Vigilance Cell report before the Committee and also submitted a document in relation to the family tree of the petitioner, wherein it is clearly shown that name of the grandfather of the petitioner was Mahadeo Maruti and his brother Shyamrao Maruti. It is submitted that the said document i.e. Dakhila Kharij register of the school concerned obtained by the Vigilance Cell, reveals that the caste of these persons was “Koshti” and occupation was “weaving”. Learned counsel further contended that the evidence of Head Mistress of the school establishes that the Dakhila Kharij register extract 3 was collected by the Vigilance Cell from the school at the time of home enquiry. Shri Sambre, therefore, contended that the conclusion arrived at by the Scrutiny Committee is just and proper. 6. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Perused the impugned order passed as well as the extract of Dakhila Kharij register and also perused the evidence of the Head Mistress. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has denied relationship with Mahadeo Maruti as well as Shyamrao Maruti. At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the document submitted by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee giving details about the family tree of the petitioner demonstrates that the name of the grandfather of the petitioner was Mahadeo Maruti and his brother Shyamrao Maruti. Similarly, the evidence of the Head Mistress of the school shows that the extract of Dakhila Kharij register was collected by the Police Vigilance Cell. Recitals in the said document show that caste of Mahadeo and Shyamrao is “Koshti” and their occupation as weaving. The petitioner has not either stated in the reply filed before the Scrutiny Committee that neither his grandfather nor his brother were not the students of the school concerned from where the Police Vigilance Cell has collected the Dakhila Kharij register extract. On the other hand, as we have already observed hereinabove, the document showing the family tree of the petitioner, submitted by the petitioner shows 4 that Mahadeo Maruti was the grandfather of the petitioner ; whereas Shyamrao Maruti was the brother of the grandfather. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has denied the relationship. However, in view of the above other evidence on record mere denial of relationship by itself in our view, does not render the impugned order invalid in law since evidence which is placed on record by the Vigilance Cell and is also supported by the evidence of Head Mistress. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is just and proper and needs no interference. 7. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that even though the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, the Respondent-Medical College is not competent to disturb the admission of the petitioner since the same is protected, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 (Vol.3 ) All. M.R . 835 (Yogesh vs. State of Maharashtra) as well as other decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, including certain Government Resolutions issued from time to time. It is brought to notice of this Court that the Director of Medical Education was directed by this Court to give admission to the petitioner provisionally if he is otherwise eligible and qualified and in view of the said direction, the petitioner was admitted on 15.7.2005 in Govt. Medical College and was also permitted to attend the the classes. In the instant case, the Govt. 5 Medical college vide impugned communication dated 29.3.2008 cancelled the admission of the petitioner only on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. So far as the decisions of the Apex Court, this Court and the Govt. Resolutions are concerned, those aspects were not considered by the Director of Medical Education. Hence, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Director of Medical Education for grant of protection in respect of her admission. The petitioner undertakes to approach the Director, Medical Education and Research within 15 days from today by filing representation in this regard. If such a representation is submitted, we direct the Director of Medical Education and Research to decide the same considering the law laid down by the Apex Court, this court as well as Govt. Resolutions, on its own merits and within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Till the decision is taken by the Director, the admission of the petitioner need not be disturbed. If the order of Director goes against the petitioner, in that event, it is open for the Director to grant further protection, if any, for same time. The impugned communication dated 29.3.2008 shall not come in the way of the Director for reconsideration of the issue of grant of protection in respect of admission of the petitioner. 6 8. With the above directions and observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE sahare