1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8379 OF 2007 Yogandhara Mangalnath Patil Thru father and guardian Mangalnath D. Patil .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner Mr.A.L.Patki, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The short question which arise for our consideration is whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee which examined the caste claim of the petitioner was properly constituted and if not, whether the decision stands vitiated. 2 3. The petitioner is prosecuting her studies in respondent nos.4 institution Engineering Degree Course. The petitioner could get admission to the said Engineering Degree Course against the seat reserved for Vimukta Jati claiming that she belongs to caste Rajput Bhamta. 4. The caste certificate of the petitioner which was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer on 26.05.2004 was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee i.e. respondent nos.2 which invalidated her caste certificate on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that she belongs to caste Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati which is the subject matter of challenge in the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the merits of the matter even on the issue as to whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee which examined the caste claim of the petitioner was properly constituted would itself vitiate the impugned decision as it is not disputed that though the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted of three members during the hearing, on 3 one occasion, one of the member was not present and this has greatly prejudiced the case of the petitioner from being considered in accordance with law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the latest decision of this court in the case of Mohd.Jamil Mohd.Yusuf Indrisi vs. Mohd.Jamil Mohd.Yusuf Indrisi vs. Mohd.Jamil Mohd.Yusuf Indrisi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. delivered on 11.02.08 State of Maharashtra & Ors. delivered on 11.02.08 State of Maharashtra & Ors. delivered on 11.02.08 in Writ Petition No.7820 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.7820 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.7820 of 2007 where this court has considered the previous decisions on the same issue and held that if the Committee is not properly constituted or does not consist of the required number of members which is mandatory then the decision of the committee stands vitiated which is the consistent view taken by this court in the matter. 7. Therefore, on this ground alone we quash and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide it in accordance with law. 8. We make it clear that the Caste Scrutiny 4 Committee would not be influenced by its earlier decision and would examine the Caste Certificate of the petitioner independent of its impugned decision which has been quashed and set aside. 9. We direct the petitioner to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 14.03.2008 with all the relevant material in support of her caste claim alongwith witnesses, if any and extend all possible cooperation to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee would take a decision in the matter within 6 weeks from the date of her first appearance before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. In the meantime, the petitioner would be permitted by the respondent Corporation to prosecute her studies in the Engineering Course for which the petitioner would not claim any equity, in case the caste claim is invalidated. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) 5 ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J )