{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.505 OF 2009 Praful Arvind Patil PETITIONER R/o 31-A, Khote Nagar, Jalgaon Dist-Jalgaon VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Social Welfare Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Caste Certificates, Nashik Division, Nashik 3. The Director of Technical Education Maharashtra State, Mumbai 4. The Government College of Engineering National Highway No.6, Jalgaon, Dist-Jalgaon 5. North Maharashtra University Jalgaon, Through its Registrar RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondents / State Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 8th September 2009 {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. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to an order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the respondent Scrutiny Committee, which, by majority, has validated the caste claim of the petitioner, as belonging to Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati). It appears that by majority of 2:1, i.e. the Chairman of the committee dissenting, the committee validated the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, since it was a majority decision, validity certificate has not been issued to him. The Chairman / President of the committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and has given his reasons in the margin of the order. The reasons are extremely brief, however at the same time he has given his reasons as to why he dissents from the reasoning given by the other two members of the committee. 3. Learned AGP was unable to point out to us, if it was mandatory that a decision to be unanimous. However, it is faintly urged by learned AGP on behalf of the committee that the decision of the committee ought to be unanimous and no validity certificate could be issued on the basis of the majority judgment. Learned AGP was unable to point out any provision, either in the Act or Rules, mandating that the decision to be unanimous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also tendered a validity certificate dated 21.08.2009 issued in favour of the real sister of the petitioner. The aforesaid certificate is taken on record {3} and marked as “X” for the purpose of identification. 4. According to us, in absence of any provision being brought to our notice that the decision of the committee ought to be unanimous and by majority decision the validity certificate cannot be conferred on a candidate, we are inclined to allow this petition. The President / Chairman of the Committee has recorded his dissent on the order itself and, therefore, by majority of the members of the committee, validity has been granted to the petitioner. Coupled with this, we find that the real sister of the petitioner has also been granted validity certificate on 21.08.2009. 5. In the light of that, therefore, we allow this petition and direct the respondent Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati) as validity has been granted by the majority decision of the Committee. This be done within four weeks from today. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Copy of this order duly authenticated be provided to the learned AGP to act upon. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp505-09