{"id":17796,"date":"2009-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-08T00:15:20","modified_gmt":"2017-08-07T18:45:20","slug":"surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Nishita Mhatre, B.R. Gavai<\/div>\n
                              1\n\n\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n              WRIT PETITION NO.991 OF 2009.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    Surjitsing s\/o Kanaksing Zalte,\n    Age: 20 years, Occ: Student,\n    R\/o: Anjale, Tal.& Dist.Dhule.\n\n                                  ....    PETITIONER.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                   VERSUS\n\n    1.     The State of Maharashtra,\n           Through Principal Secretary,\n           Social Justice & Special\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n           Assistance Department,\n           Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai 32.\n\n    2.\n                    \n           Divisional Caste Certificate\n           Verification Committee No.2,\n           Nashik, at Dhule, Dist.Dhule.\n                   \n    3.     Gangamai College of Engineering\n           Nagaon, Tq. & Dist.Dhule,\n           Through its Principal.\n\n    4.     North Maharashtra University\n      \n\n\n           U.M.V.Nagar, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon,\n           Through its Registrar.\n   \n\n\n\n                                  ....   RESPONDENTS.\n                                         RESPONDENTS\n\n                           ...\n    Mr.P.R.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr.K.J.Ghute-Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and\n    2.\n                           ...\n\n             CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE &\n                    B.R.GAVAI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
             DATE : 16th March, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT(Per: Smt.Nishita Mhatre,J.):\n<\/p>\n
    1.     Rule.   Rule made returnable forth with, by<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
    consent.\n<\/p>\n
    2.       By     this      petition,          the     petitioner           has<\/p>\n
    challenged          the order of the Scrutiny Committee by<\/p>\n
    which     the caste claim of “Rajput Bhamta” (Vimukta<\/p>\n
    Jatis) has been invalidated.\n<\/p>\n
    3.      The petitioner was born on 23rd March,                         1989.<\/p>\n
\n\n    He     was admitted to a school which he left on                          5th\n\n    August,       1999.         The     school     leaving       certificate\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    issued     to       him     indicated that he          was      a     \"Hindu\n\n    Bhamta        Rajput\".\n                               ig     The    petitioner       applied         for\n\n    validation          of his caste certificate after he                     was\n                             \n<\/pre>\n
    selected for the first year Mechanical Engineering<\/p>\n
    Course     with       the     respondent No.3         College.            His<\/p>\n
    results       for     the     first year       were       not       declared<\/p>\n
    because the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee had<\/p>\n
    not     validated         his caste claim.          The     petitioner,<\/p>\n
    then     filed Writ Petition No.5077\/2008 before this<\/p>\n
    Court     for       a declaration of his results                 for      the<\/p>\n
    first year.          The writ petition was allowed and the<\/p>\n
    petitioner’s           results          were       directed         to      be<\/p>\n
    provisionally          declared.        It was further           directed<\/p>\n
    that he would be entitled to provisional admission<\/p>\n
    if     he was found to be successful.                 This direction<\/p>\n
    was     subject to the issuance of the caste validity<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
    certificate          in    the   petitioner’s favour           by     the<\/p>\n
    Scrutiny       Committee.        It was also made clear              that<\/p>\n
    if     the     petitioner’s       claim was rejected           by     the<\/p>\n
    Committee he would claim no equity.\n<\/p>\n
    4.      The Scrutiny Committee, after considering the<\/p>\n
    report       of the Home Enquiry and the Vigilance Cell<\/p>\n
    report,       besides      other documents produced by                the<\/p>\n
    petitioner,          has   negatived       the    claim      of       the<\/p>\n
    petitioner.           The Scrutiny Committee held that the<\/p>\n
    petitioner had not been able to establish that his<\/p>\n
    caste<\/p>\n
                 was “Rajput Bhamta” and not “Rajput”.                    The<\/p>\n
    Scrutiny       Committee while relying on the                decision<\/p>\n
    of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri<\/p>\n
    Patil     and       another V\/s Addl.Commissioner,               Tribal<\/p>\n
    Development          and   others    reported       in     1995       (2)<\/p>\n
    Bom.C.R.690, held that the petitioner had not been<\/p>\n
    able     to establish his case.            It was held that the<\/p>\n
    Home     Enquiry also did not conclusively prove                      the<\/p>\n
    social       status of the petitioner of being from the<\/p>\n
    “Rajput       Bhamta”      tribe.    The    Scrutiny       Committee<\/p>\n
    took      into        consideration        the    various           other<\/p>\n
    documents          filed   by the petitioner including                the<\/p>\n
    validity       certificates       issued      in favour        of     one<\/p>\n
    Yogini       Santoshkumar        Rajput and      Bhagwan       Narsing<\/p>\n
    Zalte,       who     the   petitioner       claims,      were         his<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
    cousins.            The        Committee discarded             the      validity<\/p>\n
    certificates              as     it     was       of the     view     that       the<\/p>\n
    aforesaid           persons         were not “blood relations”                     in<\/p>\n
    terms of the G.R.                   dated 22.08.2007.\n<\/p>\n
    5.      The        learned          Advocate        for     the     petitioner,<\/p>\n
    submits           that     no Research Officer was                   associated<\/p>\n
    with        the     Scrutiny Committee and, therefore,                           the<\/p>\n
    order        of the Scrutiny Committee is without merit.\n<\/p>\n
    It     is     further           submitted           that     when       validity<\/p>\n
    certificates have been issued in favour of Bhagwan<\/p>\n
    Narsing<\/p>\n
                      Zalte and Yogini Santoshmumar Rajput, the<\/p>\n
    petitioner           also       should have been granted such                       a<\/p>\n
    certificate              as he had a common ancestor with                        the<\/p>\n
    aforesaid           two persons.            The learned Advocate then<\/p>\n
    submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has erred in<\/p>\n
    taking into account the extract from the Birth and<\/p>\n
    Death        Register          with respect to the                petitioner’s<\/p>\n
    great        grandfather            Chindha        Khushal        wherein        his<\/p>\n
    caste has been shown as “Rajput”.                           He submits that<\/p>\n
    the     petitioner’s             own school leaving                certificate<\/p>\n
    indicated           that       he     was         “Rajput     Bhamta”          and,<\/p>\n
    therefore,           he        should     have        been        granted        the<\/p>\n
    validity           certificate          by the Scrutiny             Committee.\n<\/p>\n
    The     learned advocate points out that in the                                case<\/p>\n
    of     Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
    had very clearly laid down that a Research Officer<\/p>\n
    must     be    associated with the proceedings                     of      the<\/p>\n
    Scrutiny       Committee and since in the present                       case<\/p>\n
    this     has    not       been        done,   the   enquiry          stands<\/p>\n
    vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for<\/p>\n
    the     petitioner         on the judgment of           the      Division<\/p>\n
    Bench     of this Court in the case of Yatin Nilkanth<\/p>\n
    Bastav     V\/s Executive Magistrate & others reported<\/p>\n
    in     2003(6) Bom.C.R.334 and on the decision in the<\/p>\n
    case of Mahadeorao Shamrao Rajput V\/s The State of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.4352\/1984<\/p>\n
    which     was decided by Division Bench of this Court<\/p>\n
    on    23rd     February,         1988 to      submit      that       merely<\/p>\n
    because       the    Caste       of     the    petitioner’s           great<\/p>\n
    grandfather         was    recorded as “Rajput” it did                     not<\/p>\n
    necessarily         mean    that the petitioner was                  not     a<\/p>\n
    “Rajput       Bhamta”.      The other judgment cited by the<\/p>\n
    learned       Advocate      is     in the case         of    Umraosingh<\/p>\n
    Jaisingh Chamargore V\/s The Dean, Medical College,<\/p>\n
    Aurangabad          &     others         reported         in       1999(1)<\/p>\n
    Bom.C.R.810,
\n    Bom.C.R.810         to submit that an opportunity should<\/p>\n
    be    given to the petitioner once more to establish<\/p>\n
    the tribe claim.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    7.     The       learned Advocate has also relied on                        the<\/p>\n
    judgment         in the case of Jaydeo Mahadeo Parate V\/s<\/p>\n
    State       of    Maharashtra          and     others       reported          in<\/p>\n
    2006(Supp.) Bom.C.R.              448 of the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
    this court to which one of us (B.R.Gavai,J.) was a<\/p>\n
    party to submit that he should be given benefit of<\/p>\n
    the admission granted to him instead of cancelling<\/p>\n
    the    same       if we concurr with the findings of                        the<\/p>\n
    Scrutiny Committee.\n<\/p>\n
    8.     On the other hand, the learned AGP                        appearing<\/p>\n
    for the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee submits<\/p>\n
    that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case<\/p>\n
    of    Kumari       Madhuri Patil (supra) does not in                        any<\/p>\n
    way    advance        the      case     of    the    petitioner.              He<\/p>\n
    submits       that       all    the      requirements           of     Kumari<\/p>\n
    Madhuri       Patil’s case as stipulated by the Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court,      have      been considered while               enacting          the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra          Scheduled        Castes, Scheduled              Tribes,<\/p>\n
    Denotified           Tribes,      (Vimukta          Jatis),          Nomadic<\/p>\n
    Tribes,          Other      Backward         Classes      and        Special<\/p>\n
    Backward         Category      (Regulation          of    Issuance          and<\/p>\n
    Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.                                He<\/p>\n
    submits       that all the enquiries are now                     conducted<\/p>\n
    by    the     Scrutiny Committee in accordance                       and      in<\/p>\n
    consonance         with     the       aforesaid      enactment.             The<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    learned       Advocate          points         out that      the      Scrutiny<\/p>\n
    Committee          has appreciated the evidence on                        record<\/p>\n
    in     its     proper          perspective        and,      therefore,           no<\/p>\n
    interference             is     called for by this court in                    its<\/p>\n
    writ     jurisdiction.               The       learned    Advocate            then<\/p>\n
    points       out     that each case of validation must                           be<\/p>\n
    considered          on        its   own     merits and          it    was      not<\/p>\n
    necessary          that because one of the members of                          the<\/p>\n
    family         had       been       granted       a      certificate             of<\/p>\n
    validation          of        the   caste claim          that      the       other<\/p>\n
    members       would           automatically be entitled                 to     the<\/p>\n
    same.\n<\/p>\n
                  He submits that it is for the applicant to<\/p>\n
    prove        his caste claim rather than contending that<\/p>\n
    he should be treated at par with the other members<\/p>\n
    of     his     family.          As regards the judgment                 in     the<\/p>\n
    case     of     Yatin          Nilkanth         Bastav      V\/s      Executive<\/p>\n
    Magistrate          & others (supra), the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
    submits       that        this      judgment does not              take       into<\/p>\n
    account       the decision of the Supreme Court in                             the<\/p>\n
    case     of     State          of Maharashtra         V\/s       Milind.          He<\/p>\n
    further       submits that when the Caste of the                             great<\/p>\n
    grandfather          of       the    petitioner was            recorded          as<\/p>\n
    “Rajput”,          the petitioner could not claim that                           he<\/p>\n
    was     a “Rajput Bhamta”.                 The document was pre 1960<\/p>\n
    i.e.         when    the        “Rajput         Bhamta”      tribe        became<\/p>\n
    entitled       to reservations.                The document being                of<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
    1935,       has a greater probative value according                         to<\/p>\n
    the     learned A.G.P.            As regards the requirement of<\/p>\n
    the association of the Research Officer along with<\/p>\n
    the     Scrutiny      Committee, as held in the                  case       of<\/p>\n
    Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
    submits      that     the enquiry has been              conducted           in<\/p>\n
    accordance         with the aforesaid Act and                therefore,<\/p>\n
    no    fault could be found with the constitution                            of<\/p>\n
    the Scrutiny Committee.\n<\/p>\n
    9.      In the present case, the petitioner’s                        school<\/p>\n
    leaving<\/p>\n
                 certificate indicates that his caste                         was<\/p>\n
    “Hindu      Bhamta Rajput”.          The petitioner’s              cousins<\/p>\n
    Bhagwan      Narsing        Zalte     and     Yogini      Santoshkumar<\/p>\n
    Rajput        had     obtained            validity        certificates<\/p>\n
    indicating          their     Caste         was   “Rajput        Bhamta”.\n<\/p>\n
    However,      as     seen from the genealogy produced                       by<\/p>\n
    the     petitioner,         the      relationship         between         the<\/p>\n
    aforesaid      two persons and the petitioner, is                         too<\/p>\n
    distant for the Scrutiny Committee to have granted<\/p>\n
    the     Caste validity certificate to the                    petitioner<\/p>\n
    on    the     basis of their certificates.                  Chimna        was<\/p>\n
    their common ancestor.              He had two sons Vijaysingh<\/p>\n
    and     Khushalsingh.        Bhagwan is from the lineage of<\/p>\n
    Vijaysingh while Yogini and the petitioner are the<\/p>\n
    descendants of Khushalsingh.                 Khushalsingh had two<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
    sons     Mohan     and     Chindha.          Yogini was          the        great<\/p>\n
    granddaughter of Mohan who was the step-brother of<\/p>\n
    Chindha.         The petitioner is the great grandson of<\/p>\n
    Chindha.         Thus,     it is obvious that                 though        they<\/p>\n
    have     a common ancestor, the petitioner would                              not<\/p>\n
    be     entitled     to any benefit only because                        of     the<\/p>\n
    fact     that     these        two     persons       had        their       Caste<\/p>\n
    certificates             validated.               The           petitioner’s<\/p>\n
    relationship       is too distant from both Bhagwan                             or<\/p>\n
    Yogini.         He must, therefore, prove                   independently<\/p>\n
    that he is entitled to the validity certificate.\n<\/p>\n
    10.      We have not been shown the reasons for which<\/p>\n
    the     certificates of validity were issued to these<\/p>\n
    two     persons     by     the         Scrutiny       Committee              and,<\/p>\n
    therefore,         it     is     difficult           to         accept        the<\/p>\n
    submissions       of      the        learned      Advocate           for      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner        that he is also entitled to a validity<\/p>\n
    certificate.       In our view, therefore, the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
    Committee        has rightly discarded the                    certificates<\/p>\n
    issued     in favour of Bhagwan and Yogini for                            being<\/p>\n
    the     basis     on     which         the     petitioner          would        be<\/p>\n
    entitled to the Caste validity certificate.\n<\/p>\n
    11.      The     learned        Advocate       for        the     petitioner<\/p>\n
    points out that the petitioner’s great grandfather<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
    i.e.      Chindha’s birth extract indicates that                           his<\/p>\n
    Caste     was “Rajput”.             He points out that it was an<\/p>\n
    old,     pre Constitution document.                   He submits         that<\/p>\n
    the     term     “Bhamta” may have been                excluded        while<\/p>\n
    recording        the        Caste     of the     petitioner’s          great<\/p>\n
    grandfather           in     the birth extract since it was                   a<\/p>\n
    derogatory           term.        He has placed reliance on                the<\/p>\n
    judgment        of the High Court in the case of Mahadeo<\/p>\n
    Shamrao        Rajput        V\/s The State of Maharashtra                  and<\/p>\n
    others (Writ Petition No.4352\/1984).                       The Division<\/p>\n
    Bench     of this Court, while considering the                         case,<\/p>\n
    where<\/p>\n
              the petitioner claimed that he belonged                            to<\/p>\n
    the     “Rajput           Bhamta”     Caste     has     observed         that<\/p>\n
    “Bhamta”        is        a term of abuse and it was for                 this<\/p>\n
    reason that the term “Bhamta” was not shown in the<\/p>\n
    record     of        the     Birth and        Death    Register.            The<\/p>\n
    submission           of     the     learned      Advocate       for         the<\/p>\n
    petitioner           is     without     any merit.       It     was      only<\/p>\n
    after     the Presidential Order of 1960 that “Rajput<\/p>\n
    Bhamta”        tribe        was     conferred    the     status        of     a<\/p>\n
    Scheduled        Tribe entitled to the reservations.                         It<\/p>\n
    was     only after independence that it was felt that<\/p>\n
    the     word “Bhamta” should not be used as it was                            a<\/p>\n
    term of abuse or in any case was derogatory.                             When<\/p>\n
    the     Caste        of the petitioner’s great               grandfather<\/p>\n
    was     recorded in 1935 there was no question of not<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
    including           the      word “Bhamta”, if indeed,                he     did<\/p>\n
    belong         to        the     “Rajput        Bhamta”    tribe.            The<\/p>\n
    petitioner’s              school leaving certificate has                   been<\/p>\n
    issued        in 1999, indicating that he belongs to the<\/p>\n
    “Rajput        Bhamta”          tribe.     It is, therefore,               quite<\/p>\n
    possible that it was only in order to avail of the<\/p>\n
    benefits           of     reservations that         the      petitioner’s<\/p>\n
    Caste        was        shown     as “Rajput Bhamta”           instead         of<\/p>\n
    “Rajput”.\n<\/p>\n
    12.     In the case of Yatin Nilkanth Bastav (Supra),<\/p>\n
    the     Division<\/p>\n
                                 Bench of this Court has            held        that<\/p>\n
    rejecting           a claim of the petitioner in that                       case<\/p>\n
    that     he belonged to the “Mahadeo Koli” tribe only<\/p>\n
    on     the     ground           that his father’s         school        record<\/p>\n
    showed that he was a “Koli” and not “Mahadeo Koli”\n<\/p>\n
    was     unacceptable.                 It was held that the            general<\/p>\n
    description             of      the    genus does not        exclude         any<\/p>\n
    particular              specie and, therefore, merely                 because<\/p>\n
    the      certificate              described        the       petitioner’s<\/p>\n
    ancestor           as     “Koli” it can not be            presumed          that<\/p>\n
    they     were not “Mahadeo Koli”.                  We are afraid that<\/p>\n
    it is not possible to accept this conclusion drawn<\/p>\n
    by     the     Division Bench of this Court, in view                           of<\/p>\n
    the     later judgments of the Supreme Court and                             the<\/p>\n
    High     Court.              Besides, Kolis are classified as                   a<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    Special          Backward class while Mahadeo Kolis are                         a<\/p>\n
    Scheduled             Tribe.      The judgment therefore              appears<\/p>\n
    to be per incuriam.\n<\/p>\n
    13.     Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned<\/p>\n
    counsel          for the petitioner, on the case of Jaydeo<\/p>\n
    Mahadeo Parate V\/s State of Maharashtra (supra) is<\/p>\n
    concerned, we find that the same is misplaced.                                 In<\/p>\n
    the     said case, this Court has considered the case<\/p>\n
    of     a    person who was employed from                   the      category<\/p>\n
    reserved          for       Scheduled      Tribes, claiming              to    be<\/p>\n
    belonging             to<\/p>\n
                                the     “Halba”    Tribe.        Taking           into<\/p>\n
    consideration               the   peculiar        facts      relating          to<\/p>\n
    position          of       “Halba      Koshtis”    in     the     Vidharbha<\/p>\n
    Region,          in        view of the judgment of the              Division<\/p>\n
    Bench       of this Court, in the case of Abhay                         Parate<\/p>\n
    V\/s        State       of     Maharashtra         reported        in       1984<\/p>\n
    Mh.L.J.289            and the fact that the said controversy<\/p>\n
    was    put       to        rest   by    the    Apex     Court       on     20th<\/p>\n
    November,         2000 by a decision in the case of State<\/p>\n
    of     Maharashtra V\/s Milind (supra), and in view of<\/p>\n
    the    protection             granted by the Apex Court in                    the<\/p>\n
    said       case, this Court has held that the                       services<\/p>\n
    of     the petitioner were entitled to be                       protected.\n<\/p>\n
    This       was    because he was appointed much prior                          to<\/p>\n
    the    date       of the said judgment delivered                      by      the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
    Apex     Court.       In any event, the Court had found in<\/p>\n
    the said case that the petitioner has not played a<\/p>\n
    fraud        by producing a false certificate.            In     that<\/p>\n
    view of the matter, we find that the said judgment<\/p>\n
    is     not     applicable     to the facts of      the      present<\/p>\n
    case.\n<\/p>\n
    14.      In     our     view, the    Scrutiny   Committee          has<\/p>\n
    correctly held that the petitioner does not belong<\/p>\n
    to     the “Rajput Bhamta” tribe.         The mere fact that<\/p>\n
    the     Research Officer was not associated with                   the<\/p>\n
    Scrutiny       Committee,
\n                             ig   would not    invalidate          their<\/p>\n
    order.         It cannot be doubted that the enquiry has<\/p>\n
    been     conducted in accordance with the             provisions<\/p>\n
    of     the aforesaid Act and, therefore, the order of<\/p>\n
    the     Scrutiny       Committee must be up held.              Cogent<\/p>\n
    reasons       have     been   given by    the   Committee          for<\/p>\n
    discarding          the documents on which the        petitioner<\/p>\n
    relied       for     establishing his claim.       He has        also<\/p>\n
    failed the affinity test.\n<\/p>\n
    15.      The        submission of the learned Advocate             for<\/p>\n
    the     petitioner       that the    petitioner’s       admission<\/p>\n
    should         be     protected,    is   also    without           any<\/p>\n
    substance.           In the earlier petition filed by              the<\/p>\n
    petitioner,          this Court had made it clear by             it’s<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
    order     dated        26th August, 2008 in                    Writ      Petition<\/p>\n
    No.5077\/2008               that        the         admission           and        the<\/p>\n
    declaration           of     the       result was          provisional            and<\/p>\n
    subject        to     the issuance of the Caste                       validation<\/p>\n
    certificate           in favour of the petitioner.                         In     the<\/p>\n
    present        case,        we     are       not    impressed          with       the<\/p>\n
    submissions           of     the       learned           Advocate        for      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner            that        he     should          be    permitted            to<\/p>\n
    prosecute           his studies in the Engineering                         Stream.\n<\/p>\n
    The     Court        had made it clear that the                       petitioner<\/p>\n
    would     not        be entitled to claim equities in                            case<\/p>\n
    his caste claim was invalidated.\n<\/p>\n
    16.      In the case of Union of India V\/s                             Dattatray<\/p>\n
    Namdeo        Mendhekar & others reported in 2008(3) ALL<\/p>\n
    M.R.441,
\n    M.R.441         the Supreme Court considered the                             effect<\/p>\n
    of invalidation of the Caste certificate issued in<\/p>\n
    favour         of      a    person.                The        Supreme           Court<\/p>\n
    distinguished Milind’s case and observed that, “it<\/p>\n
    did     not     apply       to the appointments made                       on     the<\/p>\n
    posts     of        the wrong claims of the                    Caste       tribe”.\n<\/p>\n
    The     Supreme Court observed that in Milind’s                                 case<\/p>\n
    it had observed that since he had been admitted to<\/p>\n
    the     Medical       Course           in     the    Scheduled               Tribes<\/p>\n
    category        15    years prior to the decision                          of     the<\/p>\n
    Supreme        Court,       the        seat    could          not    have       been<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                        15<\/span><\/p>\n
    offered to another deserving candidate even if the<\/p>\n
    admission     was to be annulled.            The Supreme           Court<\/p>\n
    observed    that public money had already been spent<\/p>\n
    on     the respondent in that case and, therefore, it<\/p>\n
    would not be of any use to strip the respondent of<\/p>\n
    his degree.\n<\/p>\n
    17.    The petitioner, in the present case, had been<\/p>\n
    admitted    to     the     Engineering        Stream        and        has<\/p>\n
    completed     only       one    year.     His    admission             was<\/p>\n
    provisional       and the declaration of his result was<\/p>\n
    also    provisional.\n<\/p>\n
                          ig       Thus, no equities          have       been\n\n    created      in    his     favour.      In    our        view,         the\n                        \n    petitioner,       having deprived a deserving candidate\n\n<\/pre>\n
    belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category, should<\/p>\n
    not be permitted to benefit from his wrong doing.<\/p>\n
\n      \n   \n\n\n\n    18.      The petition is, therefore, dismissed.                      Rule\n\n    discharged.       No orders as to costs.\n\n\n\n\n\n            (B.R.GAVAI,J.)             (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J.)\n\n\n\n    lkp\n\n\n\n\n\n                         Authenticated Copy,\n\n\n                             (L.K.Pradhan)\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>\n                    16<\/span>\n\n\n      P.A.to the Hon'ble Judge.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                              \n                             \n                    \n         \n        \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:25:17 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009 Bench: Nishita Mhatre, B.R. Gavai 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.991 OF 2009. Surjitsing s\/o Kanaksing Zalte, Age: 20 years, Occ: Student, R\/o: Anjale, Tal.& Dist.Dhule. …. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSurjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-07T18:45:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-07T18:45:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2651,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-07T18:45:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-07T18:45:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-07T18:45:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009"},"wordCount":2651,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009","name":"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-07T18:45:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjitsing-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surjitsing vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17796","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17796\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}