- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NOS.8128/2010, 8129/2010 and 8137/2010 WRIT PETITION NO.8128/2010 Gurudevi d/o Shivasharanayya Swami, age 21 yrs., occu.student, r/o c/o Swami Vivekanand Institute of Technology and Management, Udgir Tq.Udgir Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] State of Maharashtra, thorugh its Secretary, High and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 3] Divisional Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes Caste Verification Committee, Division Latur, through its Chairman. 4] Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Vishnupuri, Nanded. Tq. & Dist.Nanded. Through its Registrar. - 2 - 5] Swami Vivekanand Institute of Technology and Management, Udgir. Through its Director, Tq. Udgir Dist.Latur. ...Respondents... ..... Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent no.4. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.8129/2010 Chanchala d/o Vaijanath Kolle, age 21 yrs., occu.student r/o c/o Swami Vivekanand Institute of Technology and Management, Udgir. Tq. Udgir Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] State of Maharashtra, thorugh its Secretary, High and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 3] Divisional Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes Caste Verification Committee, Division Latur, through its Chairman. - 3 - 4] Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Vishnupuri, Nanded. Tq. & Dist.Nanded. Through its Registrar. 5] Swami Vivekanand Institute of Technology and Management, Udgir. Through its Director, Tq. Udgir Dist.Latur. ...Respondents... ..... Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.B. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent no.4. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.8137/2010 Chhaya d/o Janardhan Sadanande, age 21 yrs., occu.student, r/o c/o Swami Vivekanand Institute of Technology and Management, Udgir. Tq.Udgir Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] State of Maharashtra, thorugh its Secretary, High and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. - 4 - 3] Divisional Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes Caste Verification Committee, Division Latur, through its Chairman. 4] Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Vishnupuri, Nanded. Tq. & Dist.Nanded. Through its Registrar. 5] Swami Vivekanand Institute of Technology and Management, Udgir. Through its Director, Tq. Udgir Dist.Latur. ...Respondents... ..... Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent no.4. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 24.09.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Since no order adverse to the interest of the respondent no.5 is being passed, the requirement of notice on Rule to the respondent no.5 is dispensed - 5 - with. 2] By the present petitions, the petitioners challenge the communication dated 2.8.2003 issued by the respondent no.3 thereby refusing to accept the proposal for verification of the caste claims of the petitioners, which were sent by the respondent no.5. 3] The respective learned AGPs submit that since the proposal was sent by the respondent no.5 beyond the prescribed period, the respondent no.3 has rightly refused to accept the same. 4] It is not in dispute that in so far as present petitioners are concerned, they had submitted the relevant documents to the respondent no.5 within the prescribed period. It appears that the delay has occasioned on the part of the respondent no.5 in submitting the documents to the respondent no.3. The petitioners can not be faulted for the delay caused by some one else. 5] In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed with following directions: [1] The respondent no.3 is directed to accept the proposal sent by the respondent no.5 for verification of caste claims of the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. - 6 - [2] The respondent no.4 is directed to declare the results of the petitioners of Second Semester examination of First Year of Master of Computer Application course and if the petitioners are successful in the said examination, admit them in the second year of the said course. The petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c249102