1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2489 OF 2010 Kum. Rupali d/o Vitthalrao Thakur, Age 19 years, Occ. Student, Mauli Niwas, Sambhaji Nagar, Jalna, District Jalna ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Tribal Development department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32, through its Secretary (Copy to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. Through its Director. 3. The Director of Medical Education & Research, CET Cell, St. George Hospital Compound, Opp. Govt. Dental College Building, Near Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST), Mumbai – 400 001. 4. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Vani Road, Nasik, through its Registrar. 5. The Principal, C.S.M.S’s Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Kanchanwadi, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS 2 ..... Shri J.M. Murkute, Advocate for petitioners Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 15th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for deciding the pending caste claim of the petitioner and also prays that the respondents be directed not to hinder the academic pursuit of the petitioner as also not to cancel the admission which is granted to the petitioner on a reserved seat meant for Scheduled Tribe candidate. 3. In the light of the limited relief which the petitioner 3 has prayed for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner came to be granted admission to the B.A.M.S. Course on a seat which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate as the petitioner claims to be belonging to “Thakur”, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. Undisputedly also, the caste claim of the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondent Scrutiny Committee since 2008. In such circumstances, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent Scrutiny Committee to decide the pending caste claim of the petitioner. We accordingly direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 29.6.2010 and further direct the respondent Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within six months of 29.6.2010. Since the petitioner cannot be faulted for the delay, which has arisen on account of the pending caste claim, we direct the respondents not to cancel the admission of the petitioner and to permit the petitioner to prosecute the B.A.M.S. Course. It is needless to state that the degree or diploma conferred on the petitioner would be subject 4 to the decision of the respondent Scrutiny Committee. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)