1311wp3601.09.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3601 of 2009 (Vikrant s/o. Prakash Sawalkar .vs. The Director of Technical Edu. and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D.D.Sinha and F. M. Reis, JJ. Date : 13/11/2009. Heard Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, Adv. for petitioner, Mr.O.D.Kakde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Mr.P.D.Meghe, Adv. for Respondent No.3. Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, Adv. for petitioner states that the petitioner is a student of Engineering College, who has secured admission in the First Year Engineering Course for the Academic Session 2008-09 from the O.B.C. category. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared in the Final Examination of First Year Engineering Course which was held in the month of April, 2009 and secured 65% marks and also got admission in Second Year. It is contended that, since the petitioner was given admission from the O.B.C. category, the petitioner submitted caste certificate along with the relevant documentary evidence to the Authorities in the 1311wp3601.09.odt 2 . month of August, 2008. The College forwarded the same to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste claim of petitioner. As per the requirement, the petitioner was supposed to submit the Validity Certificate on or before 20.6.2009; however, the Caste Scrutiny Committee could not complete verification proceedings on or before the said date. The petitioner could not submit the Validity Certificate within the stipulated period. It is submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee concluded the verification proceedings and validated the caste claim of petitioner by issuing Validity Certificate on 4.7.2009. The petitioner thereafter submitted the Validity Certificate to the College on 6.7.2009. The College has forwarded the same to the respondent no.1. However, respondent no.1 refused to accept the same since the cut-off date of submission of Validity Certificate was over on 20.6.2009. Counsel for petitioner has, therefore, submitted that direction may be given to respondent no.2 to validate admission of petitioner and respondent no.1 to accept the Validity Certificate. Counsel for respondents do not dispute the factual aspect of the matter. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the delay was caused in the verification proceedings by the 1311wp3601.09.odt 3 . Caste Scrutiny Committee and no fault can be attributed to the petitioner in this regard. It is nodoubt true that the Validity Certificate was required to be submitted on or before 20.6.2009 by the petitioner. However, since the verification proceedings by the Committee were not completed on or before the said date, it was not possible for the petitioner to submit the Validity Certificate on or before the said date. In that view of the matter, in the interest of justice, we dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent no. 2 to validate admission of the petitioner and respondent no.1 is directed to accept the Validity Certificate. JUDGE JUDGE jais