High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 9814 / 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9814 OF 2024Kum. Sakshi D/o Laxman Mirzapure,Age : 18 years, Occu. : Education,R/o Nagapur, Post Ardhapur,Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded.. Petitioner VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Medical Education Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 and others.. Respondents ...Advocate for petitioner : Mr. O.B. BoinwadAddl.GP for the respondent – State : Mr. P.S. Patil... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 27 SEPTEMBER 2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Since the petitioner is seeking to confirm admissionthrough NEET-UG-2024 process, we have taken up this matter for finaldisposal urgently with the consent of both the sides.2. The petitioner is putting up a challenge to the judgmentand order of respondent no. 2 - scrutiny committee dated 05-09-2024refusing to validate her ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe certificate. 2 WP / 9814 / 2024 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit thatpetitioner’s first degree cousins - Ravikant Sanatkumar Mirzapure andRohini Sanatkumar Mirzapure have been issued with certificates ofvalidity by following due process of law. A vigilance enquiry wasconducted and by reasoned orders, they were held entitled to havecertificates of validity. He would advert our attention to the fact that inthe matter of Ravikant, the school record of the year 1955 of hisgrandfather was referred to and relied on by the then committee whileholding him entitled to have a certificate of validity. The committee isaware about it since it has made comments as to how Ravikant couldobtain certificate of validity but has avoided to make any comments inthat respect. Even in the impugned order, in paragraph no. 2, it hasreferred to this school record of grandfather Vitthal GangaramMirzapure showing him as admitted in the school on 01-07-1955describing in the caste column that he was ‘Koli Mahadev’. This beingthe oldest school record, would have greatest probative value. Anysubsequent contrary record referred to by the committee, cannotoutweigh it. Since the successive committees have not questionedgenuineness of this oldest school record of petitioner’s grandfather,even on merits, the petitioner would be entitled to have a certificate ofvalidity. 3 WP / 9814 / 2024 4. Learned advocate would further submit that apart from thevalidities of Rohini Sanatkumar Mirzapure, there are few other validitiesas well in the blood relationship. Even if the committee has decided toundertake re-verification of the validities in the family on the groundthat those were obtained by resorting to fraud, the petitioner cannot bemade to wait till the final decision by the committee at the cost of hercareer. She is ready to face the consequences if and when thecommittee is able to recall the validities and run the risk as has beenobserved in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra andothers (writ petition no. 6320 of 2017). Till the time the certificates ofvalidity are not recalled, she cannot be deprived of the benefit of havingthe validity certificate. 5. Learned AGP would oppose the petition. He would submitthat the committee has assigned cogent and convincing reasons tojustify its inference about the validity holders having concealed contraryrecord. Apart from concealment of the contrary record, even the familymembers have resorted to manipulation of the school record for theobvious reason of deriving the benefit. The petitioner cannot beallowed to take advantage of the fraud perpetrated by the bloodrelatives and the petition be dismissed. 4 WP / 9814 / 2024 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe papers.7. Apart from the fact that Ravinkant and Rohini who are firstdegree cousins of petitioner, possess certificates of validity, few othervalidities are also being pointed out by both the sides.8.Of course, if the petitioner is seeking to derive the benefitof the validities in the family, we would be respectfully guided by theparameters and principles laid down in Maharashtra Adiwasi ThakurJamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others;2023 SCC Online SC 326, particularly paragraph no. 22. It is only ifthere is no dispute about the blood relationship of the claimants thatthe validity holders and those are issued with certificates of validity by areasoned order, that the claimant would be entitled to derive the benefitof the validities in the family.9.Since it is a matter of social status, unless the validitycertificates of the blood relatives are recalled, confiscated andcancelled as is the stand of the committee in the impugned order,attributing fraud on the part of the validity holders in obtaining thevalidities, till the time it is able to do so, the petitioners cannot bedeprived of having the benefit of these many validities. We cannotundertake any exercise touching the inference drawn by the committee
Decision
5 WP / 9814 / 2024 regarding fraud based on certain circumstances for the reason that thevalidity holders are not parties before us and we do not intend to causeany prejudice to their rights and even influence the decision of thecommittee by making certain comments. It will have to be resorted toin an appropriate proceeding.10. We have gone through the original file of Ravikant. Thevigilance enquiry was conducted and by a reasoned order, he was heldentitled to have a certificate of validity. It is pertinent to note thatsustainability of that order on merits is not a parameter laid down inMaharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra).We are precisely recording this as an attempt has been made by thelearned AGP to demonstrate that Ravikant was granted benefit of thevalidities of the persons who were not related to him by blood. Additionally, the committee, in the impugned order, had referred toseveral other documents as well which it relied upon, in addition to thevigilance report while holding him entitled to have a certificate ofvalidity. Since he was issued certificate of validity by undertaking avigilance enquiry and by a reasoned order and judgment, the petitioneris entitled to derive the benefit of such validity.11.The writ petition is partly allowed.12.The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 6 WP / 9814 / 2024 13.The respondent - committee shall immediately issue tribevalidity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’scheduled tribe. The validity shall be co-terminus with the validities ofearlier validity holders.14.The petitioner shall not claim equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/