Bombay High Court
PRADNYA BHAURAO DHADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The review applications are dismissed as no ground for review exists under the applicable principles.
Summary
The petitioners, Pradnya Bhaurao Dhade and Ayesha Mohd. Ajaz Tadvi, sought a six‑month extension for submitting caste/tribe validity certificates, relying on a Social Welfare Department circular dated 02‑07‑2026 which they argued should apply to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) as well. The High Court rejected their writ petitions, holding that the circular applied only to SEBC and OBC categories. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioners filed review applications, contending that later orders from the Principal Seat (extending the benefit to ST) and a new circular dated 04‑09‑2026 (extending to SC) constituted new and important matter justifying review. The Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction, citing Karnail Singh (2024 INSC 424) and the principles that review is limited to error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or any other sufficient reason. It concluded that the later orders do not amount to discovery of new evidence and there is no error or other sufficient reason, thus dismissing the review applications. The Court clarified that petitioners may still point out the coordinate bench orders to the concerned authorities.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the Social Welfare Department circular to SC and ST categories for extension of time.
- Whether the later orders of coordinate benches and a subsequent circular constitute grounds for a review under the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
- Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the original orders.
- Whether the distinction between Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare Departments creates any discrimination warranting review.
Subjects
- review jurisdiction
- civil procedure
- caste certificate extension
- Scheduled Castes
- Scheduled Tribes
- government circular
- coordinate bench orders
- discrimination
- Supreme Court appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41830-DB
NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 193 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10914 OF 2026
PRADNYA BHAURAO DHADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
…
AND
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) (STAMP) NO. 29316 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11164 OF 2026
AYESHA MOHD. AJAZ TADVI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
…
• Mr. Mohanish V. Thorat (through V.C.), Advocate a/w.
Mr. Vishal V. Ghansawdh for the Applicant in RANo. 193 of
2026
• Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for the Applicant in RA(ST.) No.
29316 of 2026
• Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl. GP for the Respondent – State
• Mr. Sachin V. Kuptekar, Advocate for Respondent – CET CELL
…
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned AGP
for the State.
Jhs/ 1/7
NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+
3. These applications are filed seeking review of the orders
passed by this Court dated 25.08.2026 and 29.08.2026, respectively.
4. The challenge in the petitions was to the extent of not
granting the benefit of extension of six months from the date of
admission for submission of the caste/tribe validity certificate. The
Social Welfare Department had issued a decision dated 02.07.2026
extending the time limit. The argument advanced was that the said
Circular was made applicable only to persons belonging to the SEBC
and OBC categories, whereas no such benefit was extended to
students belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
This Court, after considering all the submissions, had specifically
rejected the petitions.
5. The petitioners thereafter approached the Hon’ble Apex
Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 31474 of 2026. It appears that the
Hon’ble Apex Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order. Thereupon, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the SLP
with liberty to file a review application by pointing out the orders
passed by the co-ordinate Benches, i.e. the order dated 03.09.2026
passed by the Principal Seat at Mumbai in Writ Petition No. 11526 of
2026 and the order dated 04.09.2026 passed in Writ Petition No.
4410 of 2026 by the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur.
Jhs/ 2/7
NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+
6. The Principal Seat had granted the benefit of extension to
the students in that petition belonging to the Scheduled Tribe
category. The Court directed the State to take a decision on making
the said Circular dated 02.07.2026 applicable to the other categories,
i.e. Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic
Tribes.
7. It is now pointed out that, thereafter, a fresh Circular dated
04.09.2026 has been issued, wherein the benefit has been extended
even to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. However, persons
belonging to the Scheduled Tribes have still not been granted such
benefit. The Circuit Bench of this Court at Kolhapur, therefore, passed
an order observing, prima facie, that the benefit under the
Government Circular dated 04.09.2026 be extended to the Scheduled
Tribes as well.
8. Both the above orders were passed after this Court had
passed the orders dated 25.08.2026 and 29.08.2026. It is sought to
be argued that both these orders were subsequently found by the
petitioners.
9. Learned Advocate Mr. Thorat relied upon the judgment in
the case of Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others; 2024 INSC
424. The principles laid down therein are as under:-
Jhs/ 3/7
NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+
“III. CONSIDERATION ON THE SCOPE OF REVIEW
JURISDICTION
12. At the outset, we must reiterate that the scope of review by
this Court is very limited. The scope of review jurisdiction has
been delineated by this Court in a catena of judgments. We
would not like to burden the present judgment by reproducing
all those judgments. This Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v.
Mayawati and others (supra), after surveying the earlier law laid
down by this Court has summarized the principles thus:
"Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge
of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.”
10. Learned Advocate Mr. Thorat for the Applicant thus submits
that, though there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record, the present case is covered by clause (i), i.e. ‘discovery of new
and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could
not be produced by him’. He further submits that clause (iii), i.e. “any
other sufficient reason”, is also applicable to the present case.
11. On merits, he further relied upon the judgment in the case
of Abhishek Sharma Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir; 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 342 and submits that there has to be an intelligible
differentia while making a classification. He thus submits that an
Jhs/ 4/7
NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+
order similar to the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches be
passed in the present review application as well.
12. Learned Advocate Mr. Syed also adopts the arguments
advanced by Mr. Thorat. In his case also, an SLP bearing No. 32034
of 2026 was preferred. Though the order has not yet been uploaded,
he makes a statement that today the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
granted liberty to file a review application before this Court.
13. We have considered all these submissions. This Court, while
dismissing the petition in the case of Pradnya Bhaurao Dhade, had
specifically observed that the petitioner had approached this Court
very late seeking a direction to decide her claim at the earliest. In the
case represented by Mr. Syed, the claim was filed on 11.08.2026,
making it virtually and practically impossible for any authority to
decide the claim before the cut-off date fixed for admission. This
conduct was also taken into consideration by this Court.
14. Learned AGP vehemently opposes the review applications.
At the outset, he submits that no case is made out to entertain the
review applications. He submits that it was pointed out to this Court
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dilip Vitthal Bambale
& Ors. Vs. Vinitkumar Motiram Totlod & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.
11234-11248 of 2017, has observed that no interim relief be granted
in the matter of students.
Jhs/ 5/7
NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+
15. He further submits that the Circulars which are being relied
upon were issued by the Social Welfare Department. It is the Social
Welfare Department which deals with persons belonging other than
Scheduled Tribes, whereas it is the Tribal Welfare Department which
deals with the cases pertaining to Scheduled Tribes. Since both
Departments are different and operate in different fields, there is no
discrimination as such. The Social Welfare Department can issue a
Circular only in respect of persons belonging to to the Scheduled
Castes and OBC categories and not in respect of persons belonging to
the Scheduled Tribes. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the review
applications.
16. We have considered the submissions. This Court, while
passing the orders which are sought to be reviewed, had considered
every aspect of the matter. There is no error apparent on the face of
the record.
17. Secondly, the Applicants are now relying upon the orders
passed by the co-ordinate Benches, which were passed after this
Court had passed the orders in the writ petitions. Thus, it cannot be
said to be a case falling under the ground of discovery of new and
important matter or evidence. Similarly, the case would also not fall
within clause (iii), i.e. “any other sufficient reason”.
Jhs/ 6/7
NOB - RA NO. 193 OF 2026+
18. We are not impressed by any of the arguments advanced on
behalf of the Applicants. No case is made out for review of the orders.
The Review Applications, therefore, stand dismissed.
19. It is clarified that it is open for the petitioners to point out
the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches to the concerned
authorities.
20. With the aforesaid clarification, the Review Applications
stand disposed of.
21. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Jhs/ 7/7
Checking your session…