IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7214 OF 2011 Balaji Masnaji Potewar ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4. Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. A.P. Avhad, Advocate holding for Mr.H.K. Munde, Advocate for respondent No.5. .... 2] WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7217 OF 2011 Ganesh Raghunath Yelewad ... PETITOINER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. A.P. Avhad, Advocate holding for Mr.H.K. Munde, Advocate for respondent No.5. 3] WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7295 OF 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Yogesh Laxman Salunke ... PETITOINER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Phatale, Advocate h/f Mr. M.S. Deshmukh Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 5 Mr. M.S. Sonwane, Advocate for respondent No.2.\ Mr. D.B. Bhange, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.6. 4] WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7296 OF 2011 Jitendra Arun Thakur ... PETITOINER VERSUS Deputy Director of Education, Nashik and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Phatale, Advocate h/f Mr. M.S. Deshmukh Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 5 Mr. M.S. Sonwane, Advocate for respondent No.2.\ Mr. D.B. Bhange, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5] WRIT PETITION NO. 7302 OF 2011 Kiran Suresh Thakur ... PETITOINER VERSUS Deputy Director of Education, Nashik and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Phatale, Advocate h/f Mr. M.S. Deshmukh Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 5 Mr. M.S. Sonwane, Advocate for respondent No.2.\ Mr. D.B. Bhange, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.6. 6] WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7320 OF 2011 Sunita Pitambar Deore ... PETITOINER VERSUS Deputy Director of Education, Nashik and others ... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S. Phatale, Advocate h/f Mr. M.S. Deshmukh Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 5 Mr. M.S. Sonwane, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] All the petitioners in this group have approached this court since the proposal of the petitioners for admission to Postal D.Ed. Course was not forwarded inasmuch as they were not in possession of the validity certificate, certifying that their claim of belonging to a particular reserved category was validated. 3] Undisputedly, all the applicants have submitted their proposal for verification of their caste to the respective Scrutiny Committees. The petitioners cannot be penalized due to the inaction on the part of the Scrutiny Committee in deciding their claim. It is not in the hands of the petitioners, as to within how much time their claim should be validated by the committee. 4] Vide ad-interim orders, we had directed the Deputy Director, to forward the application of the petitioners for Postal D.Ed. Course and had further directed the Maharashtra State Council for Education and Research to admit the petitioner for the postal D.Ed. Course. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5] Learned AGP has placed before us the communication dated 23.11.2011, vide which it has been found that all the petitioners have been found to be eligible for postal D.Ed. Course and that they have been admitted to the postal D.Ed. Course by the Respondents. 6] In that view of the matter, we allow the petitions in the following terms :- [i] The respondent Scrutiny Committees are directed to decide the claim of the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within six months from today. [ii] The petitioners, who are already admitted for Postal D.Ed. Course would be permitted to continue the Postal D.Ed. Course, appear for the examinations and their result should also be declared. However, the result shall be subject to the decision of the committee, on the claim of the respective petitioner, regarding validity of their claim. Rule made absolute in above terms, with no orders as to costs. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] GRT *****