Radhika Sanjay Hedau v. Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State
2017-01-13
B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, SWAPNA JOSHI
body2017
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Learned A.G.P. points out that in Writ Petition essential facts are not disclosed. 3. We have heard Advocate Patil for the petitioner. In the Petition, there is no statement that caste claim of any family member has been validated. Similarly, there is no disclosure about invalidation of caste claim of any family member on paternal side. 4. Thus, without disclosing these essential facts, the petitioner has approached this Court on 29.1.2016 and got interim orders protecting her education. 5. If petitioner is the first person in the family to seek caste certificate, the petitioner has to disclose that fact also, so as to enable this Court to apply its mind while passing such order. If caste claims are already invalidated, it is apparent that no interim order may be granted to petitioner. If caste claims are validated in appropriate cases, rigmarole of proceedings before Caste Scrutiny Committee, can be avoided. 6. Here, without creating any precedent, as interim orders are operating since last about one year, we continue it for a period of three months more and direct the respondent no. 3 Scrutiny Committee, to complete the exercise of verification within said period. 7. The interim orders shall continue till then and shall be subject to it. It is made clear that if it is found that abovementioned essential facts were deliberately suppressed from this Court, the petitioner may not be allowed to claim any relief in equity. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.