JUDGMENT S. A. BOB DE, J.:- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties by consent. 2. Mrs. B. H. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, does not dispute the petitioner's contention that the Research Officer one Shri K. M. Pathak, who was associated with the Committee was not qualified to be on the Committee since he does not possess Degree of M.A. in Sociology or Anthropology in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 and the impugned order is thus set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Committee for a fresh decision in accordance with law. All issues are kept open. 3. Mr. S. R. Narnaware, learned Advocate for petitioner, submits that the process for M.B.B.S. Admissions is to commence day after tomorrow and that the petitioner is not being issued the preference form by the respondents since he does not have caste validity certificate. He, therefore, prays for the preference form to be issued to him. 4. Mrs. B. H. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the issue of preference form because that would amount to acknowledging his status as a Scheduled Tribe candidate which has been denied to him by the impugned order, though that order is being set aside now. Mrs. B. H. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, further submits that the rule requires the production of a caste validity certificate before any preference form is given to a candidate, failing which the category from which he is claiming cannot be granted. 5. We have considered the matter. We find that a direction to the respondents to issue a preference form to the petitioner would result in permitting the petitioner to claim a seat in respect of a category for which he has been denied caste validity certificate. This will unnecessarily deprive another candidate of similar merit and who has a caste validity certificate from being considered. Moreover, we find that the petition has been pending in this Court for about a year and the petitioner was denied caste validity sometime in August, 2009. This will unnecessarily deprive another candidate of similar merit and who has a caste validity certificate from being considered. Moreover, we find that the petition has been pending in this Court for about a year and the petitioner was denied caste validity sometime in August, 2009. There is no reason why such orders were not sought for such a long time. Hence, we reject the said prayer. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Order accordingly.