:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6704 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 6704 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 6704 OF 2008. Deepak Nivaruti Yewale Age: 19 years, R/a: Kalas, Tal: parner, Dist: Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner. Versus. 1. State of Maharashtra Through Pravesh Niyantran Samiti, Bandra, Mumbai. 2. Dynamandir High School & Junior College, Ale, Tal: Junnar, Dist: Pune. 3. Vishal Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research, Ale, Tal: Junnar, Dist: Pune. 4. Divisional Social Welfare Department, Swargate, Pune. ..Respondents. --- Ms. Shakuntala WAdekar for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhirkumar Banerjee for the respondent no.3. Mrs.M.P.Thakur A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 1 and 4 CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE: February 26, 2009. DATE: February 26, 2009. DATE: February 26, 2009. Oral Judgment (Per S.B.Mhase,J.) Oral Judgment (Per S.B.Mhase,J.) Oral Judgment (Per S.B.Mhase,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. :2: :2: :2: 2. The petitioner is a student of second year B.Pharmacy. While he was in 12th standard he submitted his application through the college for validation of his caste certificate claiming the social status as Kunabi OBC. Unfortunately the college has forwarded the said application to the Divisional Social Welfare Committee, instead of forwarding it to the District Social Welfare Officer and thereby even though he completed 1st year of B.Pharmacy his claim was not validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is to be noted that as the application was directed to the wrong authority the said application was not received by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and therefore the validation proceedings could not take place. The respondent no.3 College noted that the petitioner is continuing his education without a proper validation certificate and therefore on 17th July 2008 his admission in the second year was cancelled. Thereafter the petitioner immediately approached to this Court. This Court has taken a note of these facts and has passed detailed orders pending the petition on 6th October 2008 and further on 22nd January 2009 and directed the concerned officer to submit the proposal to Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Caste Scrutiny Committee was further directed to decide the same in a particular time. Now the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is available. It has issued caste validation certificate in favour of the petitioner on 21st November 2008. Thus :3: :3: :3: the claim made by the petitioner is found to be correct. For the delayed validation of the caste claim the petitioner is not responsible. It is the Divisional Social Welfare officer who in fact having found that wrongly the proposal has been addressed to him, should have been cautious enough either to forward the said proposal to the Caste Scrutiny Committee or to return it to the College so that the College could have taken the appropriate steps to send the said proposal to the Caste Scrutiny Committee expeditiously. Let the things as it is. The fact remains that for the delayed decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner is not responsible. However since he was not possessed of the caste validity certificate his admission was cancelled. However, since we have noted that within few days the caste validity certificate has been issued it appears that during the pendency of the petition, directions were issued that the petitioner be allowed to attend the class of second year and accordingly the petitioner has attended the class from 6th October 2008 as stated by the Principal of the college - respondent no.3, who is present in the Court. He has already filed an affidavit to that effect. We asked the Principal as to whether the petitioner has completed 75% of the attendance which is required for appearing for the second year examination as per the University Rules. The Principal who is present in the Court has categorically stated that taking into :4: :4: :4: consideration the attendance of the petitioner in both the terms he has completed 75% of the attendance and thus he has qualified for appearance in the examination. We accept the statement made by the respondent no.3 - Principal. Since we find that the petitioner has completed necessary attendance we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (b). Prayer clause (b) reads thus: "(b) direct the Respondent no.3 to allow petitioner to continue his Second Year B.Pharm., to attend lectures and to appear for examination;" 3. Rule made absolute accordingly. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)