ORAL JUDGMENT :(Per : Chavan, J.)

1. Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition the petitioner, a student of engineering with respondent No.4 college, takes exception to the communication dated 08.12.2005 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, informing the petitioner that he was not entitled to have his claim as belonging to caste Kalar (OBC) examined by the committee since he was a migrant. The petitioner, therefore, seeks direction to the committee to decide his caste claim within stipulated time since absence of decision of his caste claim has hampered his educational career. He also sought direction to the university and college to declare his result of first year examination, to which he was provisionally admitted, subject to verification of his caste claim, and to allow him to continue his education as a candidate belonging to O.B.C., or in the alternative as a candidate of open category.

3. Respondent No.3 university filed submission stating that failure of the petitioner to produce caste validity certificate resulted in withholding his result for the first year.

4. On behalf of respondent No.6, Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, it was submitted that petitioner's family is originally resident of Madhya Pradesh and since the petitioner could not produce proof of residence in Maharashtra prior to 1967, the committee did not decide the caste claim of the petitioner in light of Government Resolution dated 24.08.1995 and 21.08.1996. The committee therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Nitin Sambre, for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. Mrs. Dangre, for respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6 as well as learned Advocate Mrs. Thakare, for respondent No.3. Law Considered as settled :

6. We have also considered Government Resolutions dated 24.08.1995 and 21.08.1996 which state that the caste claims of persons who were not originally residents of State of Maharashtra and who have migrated from other states should not be examined by the committee. First resolution was issued after the decision of the Supreme Court in Action Committee etc. Vs. Union of India, reported at 1994 (5) SCC 244. The import of this decision was considered by this Court in Sudhakar Vitthal Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 475. This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudhakar Vitthal Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 784 duly considered the judgment in Action Committee Vs. Union of India with reference to the question of migrants. The case pertained to persons residing on the date of Presidential Notification in different parts of the same erstwhile state , which upon reorganisation became parts of different states. The petitioner therein, Sudhakar, hailed from Pandhurna, District : Chhindwara and claimed at Chandrapur (Maharashtra State) to belong to Halba, Scheduled Tribe. Both Pandhurna, District : Chhindwara (M.P.) and Chandrapur (Maharashtra) belonged to erstwhile Madhya Pradesh. In the new states of both Maharashtra as well as Madhya Pradesh, 'Halba' was recognised as Scheduled Tribe.

7. In this context, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the employer of the petitioner to refer the petitioner's caste claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, holding in paragraph 5 of the judgment as under :

“But the question which arises for consideration herein appears to have not been raised in any other case. It is not in dispute that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered disadvantages and denied facilities for development and growth in several States. They are required protective preferences, facilities and benefits inter alia in the form of reservation, so as to enable them to compete on equal terms with the more advantageous and developed sections of the community. The question is as to whether the appellant being a Scheduled Tribe known as Halba/ Halbi which stands recognized both in the S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document