1 WP6246.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6246 OF 2011 Manoj Haridas Sonkusare ... Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl. G. P. for respondents. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr.Mendadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the basis of the caste claim that he belongs to Halba, Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner got admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the academic year 2005-06 and his caste certificate was referred for scrutiny by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. On 8.1.2007, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated his caste claim. He did not bring this order to the notice of the concerned college and did not challenge the same before this Court till he filed Writ Petition 2 WP6246.11 No.5101 of 2008 after about one and half years. The Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 24.3.2009 noted its displeasure eloquently about the inaction on the part of the petitioner in informing or submitting a copy of the order dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Scrutiny Committee to the college authorities. Writ Petition No.5101 of 2008 came to be dismissed by noting that the petitioner took an undue advantage by seeking admission to the final year of the M.B.B.S. course. 2. By this petition in the second round, the petitioner claims that he has completed his M.B.B.S. Degree course in the month of November/December, 2009 and respondent No. 3 college had also issued the Internship Completion Certificate. By placing reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v/s Milind & ors., reported in 2001 (1) S.C.C. 4, as well as subsequent orders passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7411 of 2011, S.L.P. (Civil) No.12646 of 2008 and S.L.P. No.2128 of 2009, the petitioner prays for directions to respondent No. 4 University to forthwith issue him the Internship Completion Certificate as well as the Degree Certificate. 3. The prayers in this petition cannot be entertained by us. 3 WP6246.11 The Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi v/s State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in (2008) 5 S.C.C. 652, while referring to its earlier Constitution Bench decision in the case of Milind (supra) stated in para 7 as under:- “7. There may however be cases where it will not be proper to permit the student to retain the degree obtained by making a false claim. One example is where the candidates secure seats by producing forged or fake caste certificates. There may be cases, where knowing full well that they do not belong to a Scheduled Tribe/Caste, candidates may make a false claim that they belong to a Scheduled Tribe/Caste. There may also be cases where even before the date of admission, the caste certificates of the candidates might have been invalidated on verification by the Scrutiny committee. There may be cases where the admissions may be in pursuance of interim orders granted by courts subject to final decision, making it clear that the candidate will not be entitled to claim any equities by reason of the admission. The benefit extended in Milind and Vishwanath Pillai cannot obviously be extended uniformly to all such cases. Each case may have to be considered on its own merits. Further what has precedential value is the ratio decidendi of the decision and not the direction issued while moulding the relief in exercise of power under Article 142 of the special facts and circumstances of a case. We are therefore of the view that Milind and Vishwanath Pillai cannot be considered as laying down a proposition that in every case where a candidate’s caste is rejected by a Caste Verification Committee, the candidate should invariably be permitted to retain the benefit of the admission and the consequential degree, irrespective of the facts.” 4 WP6246.11 4. We must also note that while deciding the case of Milind (supra), the Act framed by the State Legislature i.e. Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate Act, 2000, was not before the Supreme Court. In addition, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Rambhau Khalale v/s State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 788, also considered the legal position arising from the decision of the Supreme Court in Milind’s case (supra) and answered its conclusions as under:- (1) The observations/directions issued by the Supreme Court in para 36 of the judgment in the case of State v/s Milind, reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. (SC) 1 is not the “law declared by the Supreme Court” under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (2) The said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. (3) The said observations/directions have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. (4) The protection, if any, to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case would depend upon the exercise of discretion by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. As the powers under Article 142 are not available to the High Court no protection can be granted by 5 WP6246.11 this Court even in cases relating to admissions. 5. Thus, as per the decision of the Full Bench in Ganesh Khalale’s case (supra), this Court cannot grant protection to the petitioner and at the same time it would be advantageous to reproduce the order passed by this Court on 24.3.2009 in Writ Petition No.5101 of 2008 which was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.1.2007 by which the Scrutiny Committee invalidated his claim:- “(1). This petition is directed against the order dated 8.1.2007. The petition is filed on 18th June, 2008, practically after one and half years from the date of the order. The petitioner, inspite of knowing adverse order by which his caste claim has been invalidated, did not bring it to the notice of the College authority and appears to have taken admission in the final year of M.B.B.S. Now, he claims that the M.B.B.S., entitled to take advantage of the same. (2). Needless to mention that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court well within reasonable time. At the same time adverse order suffered by the petitioner ought to have been brought to the notice of the College authority. However, the petitioner has failed to do so. The petitioner deliberately did not file petition challenging adverse order and during this period obtained admission to MBBS suppressing material fact of adverse order where under his caste clam was invalidated. Now, the petitioner is trying to take advantage of his own wrong. (3) In this view of the matter, we do not propose to exercise the discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed for the reasons stated. 6 WP6246.11 This order be forwarded to the respondent No.4 College authority with direction to take appropriate steps. Petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.” 6. Hence, the petition is rejected. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 7 WP6246.11