1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9670OF 2010 Miss Bhagyashri d/o Waman Birajdar age 20 years, occ. education r/o c/o Wamanrao Birajdar Shastri Niwas, Mukkawar Galli Choubara road,Udgir Dist. Latur. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Department of Tribe Development Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2 The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 2 Latur Division, Latur. Through its member Secretary 3 The Maharashtra Veterinary & Fishery Science University, Nagpur through its Registrar. 4 The Associate Dean College of veterinary & Animal Science, Udgir Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.V. Ghuge, advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. R.P. Phatke, advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. P.G. Rodge, advocate for respondent no. 3. 2 ===== CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 24 th NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER B.R. GAVAI, J.) 1 Learned counsel Mr. R.P. Phatke appears for respondent no. 2 as such, service is complete. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3 Petitioner has approached this court challenging the order dt. 1-10-2010 passed by respondent no. 4 thereby canceling admission of the petitioner. 4 Petitioner has been admitted by respondent no. 4 college for B.V.Sc. course against the seat reserved for OBC category. Admission was granted on an undertaking that the petitioner shall submit validity certificate within prescribed period. Since the petitioner failed to produce the validity certificate within the prescribed period, her admission came to be canceled. Hence, the present petition. 3 5 Petitioner has already submitted all the documents necessary for getting her caste validity and her claim is pending before respondent no. 2 Committee. Petitioner cannot be penalised for the inaction on behalf of respondent no. 2 Committee in deciding the claim of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition in following terms :- i Respondent no. 2 – Committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of one year from today. ii The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 13 th December, 2010. As such the requirement of common notice shall stand waived. iii Order dt. 1-10-2010 issued by respondent no. 4 is quashed and set aside. iv Respondent no. 3 is directed not to cancel the admission of the petitioner till decision of respondent no. 2 Committee regarding the claim of the petitioner and, in the event, the order passed by respondent no. 2 Committee is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect for the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 4 v It is needless to state that till the decision of claim of the petitioner by respondent no. 2, respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall permit the petitioner to appear for the examinations and declare her results and, if she is found successful, admit her to the future class. ( R. M. BORDE ) ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb/office/wp9668.10.odt