YOGESH RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2008-3-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on March 07,2008

YOGESH RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
R VISHWANTHA PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SUGNESH JAYANTILAL PARMAR VS. BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GJH)-2009-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH DEVARAM MANDORA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-119] [REFERRED TO]
SANDIP ARJUN VAZARKAR VS. SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF CASTE CERTIFICATE, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN [LAWS(BOM)-2009-6-203] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA CHANDRAPRAKASH GOEL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
BHILAI STEEL PLANT VS. GANPATI [LAWS(CHH)-2022-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
Ashok Kumar Srivastava VS. State of U.P. & Ors. [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-239] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI CHHATTARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2009-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA KOSHTI VS. SECRETARY M P S E [LAWS(MPH)-2013-1-137] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI RAM PUNIA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-454] [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA RAI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-108] [REFERRED TO]
SAPNA MEGHSHYAM REDKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
MAYURI MANOHAR BENDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-4-166] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-169] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S.C. SURLIYA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-211] [REFERRED TO]
RANVIR SINGH VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-379] [REFERRED TO]
M.A. ANSARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
K G HEMAVATHY VS. STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-171] [REFERRED TO]
M.K. RAGHUVARAN VS. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. PIN [LAWS(KER)-2018-10-400] [REFERRED TO]
R SARITHA VS. INSTITUTE OF ROAD TRANSPORT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-248] [REFERRED TO]
G VIDYA VS. REGISTRAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-259] [REFERRED TO]
SHIBDAS MONDAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-321] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. D K VIJH [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-7-165] [REFERRED]
KAUSHAL KUSUM, SON OF SHRI BANKESHWARI PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT [LAWS(PAT)-2009-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI AND ORS. VS. JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
C.P. SINGH VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-221] [REFERRED TO]
BHOOP SINGH KAUSHIK VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-235] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKESHWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2010-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH KRISHNARAO KOHAD VS. SCHEDULED TRIBE CASTE CERTIFICATES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-11-201] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL CHANDRA BHUYAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2015-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
JANNI GANGA VS. GOVT. OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2016-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH SUKANUJI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
UOI & ORS. VS. MISRI LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-456] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)The appellant sought admission to Engineering course claiming the benefit of reservation alleging that he belonged to 'Mahadeo Koli' - a scheduled tribe. The Scrutiny Committee which verified the validity of his caste certificate, made an order dated 29.3.1995 rejecting his claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. The appellant challenged the order of the scrutiny committee in W.P. No.2667/1995. In the said petition, the Bombay High Court issued an interim order directing the third respondent (Director of Technical Education, State of Maharashtra) to accept the application of Appellant for admission to BE course and process the same and give admission by treating him as a candidate belonging to a scheduled tribe, with a condition that the admission, if granted, will be provisional and subject to the final decision. In pursuance of it, the appellant was admitted to the BE course by extending the benefit of reservation under the quota for Scheduled Tribes. Eventually he completed the Engineering course and was conferred a degree by the University of Pune on 31.3.2004.
(3.)The writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed by order dated 28.3.2006, upholding the order of the Scrutiny Committee, with a direction to the third Respondent to take appropriate steps for recall of the degree granted to the appellant. The said order of the High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The only contention urged by the appellant is that even if his scheduled tribe claim was rejected, he should not have been denied the benefit of the degree obtained by him. In support of this contention, he relied on the decisions of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 and R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 105.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.