- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5195/2009 Akash Murlidhar Torkadi, age 19 yrs., occu.education, r/o Dhandarphal Tq.Sangamner Dist.Ahmednagar. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Technical Education For State of Maharashtra, 3, Mahapalika Road, Mumbai – 400 001. 3. Sir Vishwesharya Memorial Engineering College, Chindholi Tq.Sinnar Dist.Nashik. Through its Principal. 4. The Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, Maharashtra State, Through its Director, Nashik Road, Nashik – 422 002. ...Respondents... ..... Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.B. Ghatge, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent no.4. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 10.08.2009 - 2 - ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.) : 1] Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directing the respondent no.4 – committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner, which is said to be pending consideration before the committee. The petitioner also prays for directing the respondent nos.2 & 3 not to cancel the admission of the petitioner and to permit the petitioner to prosecute his studies in Second Year Engineering course in the respondent no.3 – college. It appears that the petitioner had been granted admission on account of pendency of his caste claim before the respondent – scrutiny committee. In the light of that, therefore, according to us, the interest of the respondent no.3 is adequately protected by the respondent no. 2, who is the Director of Technical Education for the State of Maharashtra and, therefore, we dispense issuance of any notice to the respondent no.3. 4] Since the claim of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent no.4 – scrutiny committee, we direct the respondent – scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than six months from today. We direct the petitioner to attend the office of the respondent no.4 – committee on 18.8.2009 and direct the committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within six months from 18.8.2009. Since the caste claim of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent no.4 – committee, we direct the respondent nos.2 & 3 not to cancel the admission of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to prosecute his studies in the Mechanical Engineering course - 3 - till the decision of his caste claim. 5] Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c1080913