WRIT PETITION – ANKIT UJJWAL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- SET B

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR

(Civil Original Jurisdiction)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13546 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF

Raj Bhanushali

S/O Anil Bhanushali

Age 22 Years Occupation: Student

Flat No- 1101, Runwal Garden,

Opp. Medanta Hospital, Dhokali,

Nagpur- 231042 Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Through the Director,

Government College of Engineering,

Nagpur- 441108 Respondent 1

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Through the Chairman,

District Caste Scrutiny Committee

Nagpur- 442201 Respondent 2

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE

OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS.

The humble application on behalf of the applicant above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the Petitioner is a citizen of India and is therefore entitled to enjoy all the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
2. That the Respondent 1 is the Director of Government College of Engineering, Nagpur
situated at Sector 27, Mihan Rehabilitation Colony Khapri (Railway), Nagpur,
Maharashtra, 441108
The Respondent’s college is recognized by UGC under UGC Act 1956 is wholly owned
by the Government of India and is, thus, an instrumentality of state is given in Annexure
12 of the Constitution.
3. That the Respondent 2 is the Chairman of District Caste Scrutiny Committee situated at
Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Giri Peth, Nagpur - 440 010.
The Respondent’s Committee has been established under the Government Resolution,
STC 10 9 0/23942/186 / K.10, dated June 03, 1992, is wholly owned by the Government
of India and is, thus, an instrumentality of state is given in Annexure 12 of the
Constitution.
4. That the Petitioner took admission in 1st year of Electrical Engineering under NT (B)
reserved quota in Respondent 1’s college after paying the fees and submitted all the
necessary documents except the Caste Validity Certificate as he was unable to get his
 certificate verified from the Scrutiny committee because of the long and time taking
process although he submitted his real cousin’s Caste Validity Certificate which was
issued by the Respondent’s 2 District Caste Scrutiny Committee Nagpur.
5. That the Respondent 1’s college asked the Petitioner to submit the Caste Validity
Certificate when he reached in 2nd Year and failing to do so will result in cancellation of
his admission. Petitioner immediately went to the Respondent 2’s Caste Scrutiny
Committee to decide caste claim but received no response.
6. That the Government of Maharashtra had already issued a GR No. LVeSu-
2007/Pra.Kra.74/MaVK-5 dated 22.08.2007 stating that the Caste Scrutiny Committee
must not reject application if the applicant has produced a Caste Validity Certificate of
any of his blood relative (e.g. Father, son, daughter, brother, sister) shown in genealogical
tree of his family.
7. That the Petitioner is already in middle of his professional course and should be allowed
by Respondent 1’s college to continue his education as NT (B) category candidate with
all the benefits of NT (B) category.
8. That the Respondent 2’s Scrutiny Committee should decide Caste claim of the petitioner
so that he could submit his certificate in Respondent 1’s college and enjoy all the benefits
of a NT (B) category candidate thereon.
9. The petition is filed on the following, amongst other,

GROUNDS
9.1 That the Respondent 1’s college can’t cancel his admission just because of Respondent
2’s Scrutiny Committee’s slow process system to decide on his caste claim.
9.2 That the Respondent 1’s college has been sleeping over their own rules for a whole year
and now they come up after a year when the Petitioner has cleared the 1st Year exams and
paid the fees of both the years.
9.3 That in Priyanka Omprakash Panwar Vs. State of Maharashtra1, the court held that
cancelling the admission of the student who was pursuing M.B.B.S degree from
Mahatma Gandhi Medical College was not justified as it takes a lot of money and energy
to pursue such a professional course.

1
2009(3)BomCR631; 2009(111)BomLR2231; 2009(4)MhLj847
 9.4 That in Shri Yuvraj Laxman Mane v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.2, it was
observed by the court was that the direction for removing the petitioner from his medical
college after completing 2 Years of studies is not likely to benefit any other candidate and
the seat go vacant.
9.5 That in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Add. Commissioner3, the court gave directions that
application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be
filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution
or an appointment to a post and in this case the Petitioner submitted the application while
he was in Junior College.
9.6 That in Sonali Krishna Mohadikar vs State of Maharashtra And Ors.4, the court
clearly stated that students seek admission in the reserved category seat on the basis of a
certificate which is yet to be scrutinized, and invalidation thereof occurs after a long span
of 2 to 5 years, and in the intervening period, the petitioner's educational career advances.
Considering the factum of completion of the course, and loss incurred to State exchequer,
and the years spent by students, as well as money, energy, and inputs of the educational
institutions, the courts are persuaded to protect the admission.

10. That the petitioner has no other effective remedy available than by approaching this
Hon’ble Court by way of present writ petition.
11. That the petitioner has not approached any other court/forum including the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.

PRAYER
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction to the

Respondent 1, praying to allow the Petitioner to continue the education as NT-B
Category candidate and not to withhold benefits of NT –B category.

2
Writ Petition No. 2451 of 1994
3
1995 AIR 94, 1994 SCC (6) 241
4
2007 (5) BomCR 257
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction to the
Respondent 2, praying to decide Caste claim of the Petitioner.
c) to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts
and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS INDUTY

BOUND, EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

DRAWN:

FILED ON:
 MCQS

A. Any offense relating to non-payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act
Employer shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than SIX MONTHS.

B. A person cannot seek issuance of a writ if an alternative remedy is available to

him. This Statement is CORRECT.

C. Which of the following Articles of the Constitution relates to the issuance of writs?
ARTICLE 32 AND ARTICLE 226

D. Writ of MANDAMUS relates to the performance of a legal duty by any public

authority.

E. X is aggrieved by an order passed by District court, New Delhi without having

jurisdiction. Which of the following writs is the proper remedy available to X?
CERTIORARI