1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4903 OF 2009 Ankulwar Madhuri d/o Vyankatrao Age : 22 years, Occup.Education R/o Ankur Nagar, Bhausar Chowk, Taroda (Khu), Tq. & Dist. Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Vishnupuri Nanded, through its Vice Chancellor 3. The Registrar of The Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Vishnupuri, Nanded 4. The President of M.Ed. Admission Committee, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Vishnupuri, Nanded 5. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS 2 Mr G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 4; Mr R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 28th JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] 1. At the outset, Shri G.N. Chincholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks for the leave to amend the petition for incorporating a prayer for directing the respondent – Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner within a stipulated period. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also prays for leave to add the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad as a respondent to the petition. We grant leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. This is a peculiar case where the petitioner, who though stands in merit cannot seek admission for M.Ed. course as the petitioner has not submitted her certificate as belonging to “Mannerwarlu” - Scheduled Tribe to the Verification Committee for verification. 3 The petitioner undisputedly stands at sr.no.28 in the merit list which is prepared and, therefore, aspires to be admitted to the M.Ed. course conducted by respondents no.2, 3 & 4. In the peculiar facts of the case, therefore, we are inclined to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as a candidate belonging to “Mannerwarlu” - Scheduled Tribe and also to direct the respondent no.5 Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner. 4. Accordingly this petition succeeds. We direct respondents no.2, 3 and 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to M.Ed. course from the category of Scheduled Tribe candidates, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. We also direct the respondent – Scrutiny Committee which is represented by learned Counsel Shri R.P. Phatke to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within three months. We accordingly direct the petitioner to remain present before the Committee on 5th August, 2009 and the Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within three months of 5th August, 2009. We have made it clear to the petitioner that the admission, if granted to the petitioner, would be subject to the result of the Scrutiny Committee. The admission of the petitioner would stand automatically cancelled in the event the tribe claim of the petitioner is invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall not claim any equities in law on the basis of the admission which is granted to the petitioner. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. 6. Copy duly authenticated be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. [ A.V. POTDAR, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] amj/wp4903.09 5 WRIT PETITION NO.4903 OF 2009 Date of decision : 28th July, 2009 For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.V. POTDAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [Anant Joshi] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge. 6