Judgment 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner secured admission in BHMS faculty in Respondent No.2 institution from reserved category claiming to be Naikpod caste, Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner was scrutinized by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and came to be invalidated on 29.7.2008. Against that decision, the petitioner preferred writ petition in this Court which was dismissed on 4.5.2009. The petitioner then carried the matter in Appeal before the Apex Court which was also dismissed on 8.11.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order passed by Respondent No.1 Vice-Chancellor to refrain from admitting the petitioner as she was not eligible to appear for the current year examination as also the final year examination of BHMS course. That decision was challenged by way of Writ Petition No.4365 of 2011 which came to be withdrawn on 13.6.2011 with liberty to make representation to the competent authority. Accordingly, the petitioner made representation to the competent authority on 8.8.2011. The competent authority has not accepted the representation. In this backdrop, the present petition has been filed to not only challenge the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by Respondent No.1 Vice-Chancellor but also to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pursue the BHMS course on the assumption that the petitioner has been admitted against the open seat. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court must take sympathetic view of the matter and permit the petitioner to complete remaining course from open category. Even if we may have full sympathy with the petitioner, the fact remains that the petitioner's caste claim has been invalidated by the caste scrutiny committee which decision has attained finality after dismissal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner upto the Apex C tfgourt. The consequence of invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as per section 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste) Certificate Act, 2000 is that the petitioner, in law, has been debarred from the educational institution. That is the mandate of section 10(1) of the Act. Even by interpretative process, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner to allow her to continue the BHMS course hereafter. 3. That is the mandate of section 10(1) of the Act. Even by interpretative process, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner to allow her to continue the BHMS course hereafter. 3. Somewhat similar contention has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region & Ors., Writ Petition No.5624 of 2011 decided on 5.3.2012. This Court had no option but to reject the request of the petitioner as is made in the present petition. Even in another case decided by this Bench in Sandeep Ganpat Thakur vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors., Writ Petition No.1046 of 2012 on April 19, 2012, similar contention has been considered and rejected. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench at Aurangabad in AshwiniSadashiv Hakke vs. The State & Ors., Writ Petition No.538 of 2012 dated 1.2.2012 to contend that the limited relief claimed by the petitioner was granted by the said Court. On a bare perusal of the said order, we may observe that it is not an authority on the proposition considered by this Court in the context of section 10 of the Act of 2000 referred to above. The decision on which the petitioner relies reads thus: “Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The petitioner, who was admitted for MBBS course against the seat reserved for scheduled tribe has been unsuccessful in getting her tribe claim validated, which invalidation has been confirmed up to this Court. Even the review preferred against the same has been dismissed. The petitioner has now prayed to this Court for a direction to the respondent -University to declare her result of last year's MBBS examination. The petitioner has given undertaking stating therein that the petitioner shall not claim any benefit from the scheduled tribe category on the basis of her MBBS degree. In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has already undergone the entire course, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner has given undertaking stating therein that the petitioner shall not claim any benefit from the scheduled tribe category on the basis of her MBBS degree. In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has already undergone the entire course, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B), however, on the condition that neither the petitioner nor her progeny shall be hereinafter entitled to claim any of the benefits of belonging to scheduled tribe category.” 5. With utmost respect, at our command, we may observe that showing indulgence to the petitioner would be in the teeth of the mandatory provision contained in section 10 of the Act of 2000. In other words, the Court would be issuing a direction or order in the nature of writ against the authority to do something which is contrary to the statutory provisions. That cannot be the scope of interference or indulgence to be shown in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence, this petition fails and the same is rejected.