(1) wp3738-3739-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3738 OF 2011 Tahniyat Naazneen Mohd. Muniruddin PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. S.S. Tope, advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for respondent No. 3. Dr. Shrikant Patil, advocate for respondent No. 4. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3739 OF 2011 Safurabegum Ateeque Ahmed Inamdar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. S.S. Tope, advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. K.C. Sant, advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. S.K. Patil, advocate for respondent No. 4. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. (2) wp3738-3739-11 2. In both these petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court since the respondent No. 2 Committee has not issued validity certificate in favour of the petitioners certifying that the petitioners belong to `Chapparband - Vimukta Jati (A)' category. 3. Perusal of the record would reveal that two members of the respondent No. 2 Committee, by their decision dated 22nd July, 2009, have held that the petitioners have established that they belong to `Chapparband - Vimukta Jati (A)' category and as such, have held the claim of the petitioners as valid. However, it is only the Chairman of the Committee who has differed with other two members of the Committee and held that the petitioners have failed to establish their claim and as such, the claim of the petitioners is held as invalid. 4. Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 reads as follows : (3) wp3738-3739-11 "9. Meetings and quorum of Scrutiny Committee - (1) The quorum of Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee for any hearing or sitting for decisions shall be of the following three members out of the total five members :- (1) Chairman or Vice Chairman (2) Member Secretary (3) any other Member. (2) If in a particular sitting, four members are present and two different opinions are formed by equal number of members, the matter may be placed before the full Committee for decision. (3) A majority decision shall be the judgement of the Committee. (4) *****" 5. Thus, perusal of Rule 9 would reveal that majority of the decision shall be the judgement of the Committee. 6. Further, the said Rules are applicable to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee scrutinizing the claim of the Scheduled Tribe candidates and have been, in principle, adopted by the State Government even insofar as the Committees which are scrutinizing the claims of Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jati, Other (4) wp3738-3739-11 Backward Classes, etc. The perusal of Government Circular dated 5th October, 2009 would reveal that an endeavour is required to be made that the members of the Committee arrive at a consensus. It is further directed that if a member takes a contrary view, the view of the majority of the members should prevail and a member amongst one who are taking majority view should write the judgement. As such, since two members out of total three members, in the present case, have held that the petitioners have established their claim and have further held that the petitioners' claim is valid, the minority view of the Chairman of the Committee did not deter the Committee from issuing the validity certificates in favour of the petitioners. 6. In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute by directing the respondent No. 2 Committee to issue the validity certificate in favour of the petitioners certifying that the petitioners' claim of belonging to `Chapparband - Vimukta Jati (A)' category is valid. The validity certificates shall be issued within a period of three weeks from today. (5) wp3738-3739-11 Consequently, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to treat the petitioners as the candidates validly selected against the seats reserved for Vimukta Jati (A) category and allow them to prosecute their studies of B.D.S. Course and to appear for the forthcoming examinations in that Course. In case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3738/2011, the respondent/University is further directed to declare the result of the petitioner's examination of second year B.D.S. and permit him to fill up the form of B.D.S. third year course examination, treating the petitioner as belonging to Vimukta-Jati (A) category. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp3738-3739-11