ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner before us is Darshan Chandravilas Bhamare. He is a resident of Nasik. His claim was placed before the second respondent-Committee in following facts and circumstances.

3. The petitioner was admitted against a reserved seat (reserved seat for Scheduled Tribe) in the first year of Engineering Degree Course in the academic year 2016-2017 in the fourth respondent-College. The seat was allotted by the third respondent. The petitioner says that a caste certificate was granted to his father on 30th June, 1987. A copy of this certificate is annexed and marked as Exhibit 'H' to the petition. That certifies the said certificate holder to be a Thakur, Scheduled Tribe.

4. The petitioner also relies upon a copy of the caste certificate dated 7th March, 1978 issued to grandfather of the petitioner. This grandfather from the paternal side is Adhar Ganpat Bhamare. The petitioner says that having been satisfied with these two certificates, the petitioner, who was born on 27th March, 1998, admitted himself to a Primary School at Nandurbar on 28th June, 2004. He left the school after passing the fourth standard examination in the month of June, 2007. In the school admission record and in the school leaving certificate, the petitioner was stated to be belonging to Hindu Thakur, Scheduled Tribe.

5. On the strength of all these documents, the petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which was issued to him on 2nd March, 2015 and copy of which is at Exhibit 'P' to the petition.

6. Now, on the strength of this, the petitioner claimed the seat reserved for scheduled tribe. The petitioner says that he has been a victim of the circumstance, inasmuch as, the certificate of validity was not issued to him and his caste certificate has been invalidated. The first occasion on which this invalidation was done is by an order dated 18th September, 2015. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with that order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3604 of 2016. That writ petition was placed before a Division Bench of this Court, which was pleased to quash and set aside that order and directed the second respondent to carry out fresh scrutiny and verification of the tribe claim of the petitioner. Time was granted to do so, but the Committee failed to adhere to the same. The petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 127 of 2017 as the Committee failed to adhere to the time schedule. After that Contempt Petition was placed, the Committee moved and issued the two show-cause notices to the petitioner forwarding him a copy of the Vigilance Cell Report. The Vigilance Cell Report is dated 9th January, 2018 and the two show-cause notices are dated 12th and 15th January, 2018. The petitioner says that after he appeared and made the submissions, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order is dated 1st February, 2018.

7. When this petition was placed before a Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench on 23rd March, 2018 passed the following order:-

"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we direct the learned AGP to file reply before the returnable date. Stand over to 20.4.2018.

2. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the order impugned in this petition."

8. That order has continued till date. During the course of the arguments, reliance is placed by Mr. Mendadkar on the fact that the petitioner completed the engineering course, but the fourth respondent is not issuing the mark-sheet, passing certificate and the degree certificate on account of invalidation of the claim. That is how, in the initial round, on 22nd November, 2019, we passed the following order.

"1. Since Shri. Mendadkar complains that despite the order dated 23.3.2018 passed by this Court, the fourth respondent- College is bent upon canceling the admission of the petitioner an