1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2569 OF 2010 Ansari Mohammed Abdul Khadar S/o Mohammed Isa Anwar, Age 19 years, Occu.Student, Resident of Near Branch No.1 School, Mominpura, Parbhani, At present Brahan Mumbai, Mahanagarpalika Hostel, Mumbai ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader, High Court at Aurangabad 2. The Principal, Nair Hospital Dental College, Dr.A.L.Nair Road, Mumbai, Central Mumbai 400 008 3. The Registrar, Health University, Nasik 4. The Chairman, Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mrs.A.N.Ansari, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4 Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for respondent No.3 Respondent No.2 served, absent CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 14 th June 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondent No.4 scrutiny committee to decide the pending caste claim of the petitioner and further prays for directing the respondent No.3 to issue eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner and not to take adverse action against the petitioner for his failure to produce the validity certificate. 3. We have heard Mrs.Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 4 and Mr.Sant, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No.3. None appears on behalf of respondent No.2 though served. In that light of the limited nature of relief, which is sought by the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. Since the claim ofthe petitioner is pending consideration with respondent No.4, according to us, it would be wholly inappropriate on the part of the respondents to either not 3 permitting the petitioner to prosecute his studies or not to issue the eligibility certificate since the petitioner had been granted admission. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to issue the eligibility certificate and not to take any adverse action against the petitioner solely on the basis that the petitioner has not produced the validity certificate. We further direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent – scrutiny committee on 5th July 2010 and further direct the respondent – scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within four months of 5th July 2010. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/2569.10wp)