VARAD JAYWANT PATIL MINOT THR FATHER JAYWANT PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SEC. TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ANR

                                                                              909-WP-10697-26.doc


             Sharayu Khot.

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 10697 OF 2026


                    Varad Jaywant Patil, Minor                      …Petitioner
                    Through Father Jaywant Patil

                             Versus

                    State of Maharashtra & Ors.                     …Respondents

                                                    ----------
                    Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner.
                    Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for Respondent – State.
                    Ms. Megha Gowalani for Respondent No.3 – State CET Cell through
                    Commissioner.
                                               ----------

                                             CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J
                                                     FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J

                                             DATE        : 27 August 2026

                    ORDER :


                    1.           Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent

                    of the parties.
SHARAYU
PANDURANG
KHOT




Digitally
signed by
SHARAYU
PANDURANG
KHOT
Date:
2026.08.28
                    2.           By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction to
15:28:47
+0530




                    Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee to decide the case of the

                    Petitioner for grant of Validity Certificate, in accordance with law, as


                                                      1/5
                                                        909-WP-10697-26.doc


expeditiously as possible, and in any event on or before 30th August

2026. The urgency for moving the present Petition is that the

Petitioner has been granted provisional allotment status for

admission to First Year Undergraduate Technical Course in

Engineering and Technology by the Vidyalankar Institute of

Technology, Wadala, Mumbai, and there being a requirement that the

Caste Validity Certificate is required to be uploaded before the final

reporting date of Fourth CAP round, which is by 7th September 2026.



3.            The Application for Caste Validity Certificate had been

made on 10th October 2025. There is a Certificate of Validity issued

to the father of the Petitioner on 31st October 2014, and Certificate

of Validity issued to the real sister of the Petitioner on 24th

September 2021.



4.            The learned AGP, appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1

and 2, states that a Vigilance Cell Inquiry Report is awaited in the

proceeding before the Scrutiny Committee for which a further period

of three months is required to decide the validity claim of the

Petitioner.




                                  2/5
                                                                      909-WP-10697-26.doc


5.            Mr. Mendadkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, has referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this

Court (Nagpur Bench) in Nandkumar s/o Manohar More Vs. The

State of Maharashtra and Ors.1, wherein a view has been taken in

context of the requirement of inquiry by Vigilance Cell, where the

real brother of the Petitioner has been held as belonging to

Scheduled Tribe and on an earlier occasion, the real uncle of the

Petitioner has been held to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, viz. that

permitting the Scrutiny Committee to again conduct an inquiry

through Vigilance Cell would be nothing else, but prolonging the

decision of a legitimate claim of the Petitioner before this Court.



6.            Mr. Mendadkar, on instructions from the Petitioner, states

that the Vigilance Cell Inquiry Report may be dispensed with in the

present case. The statement is accepted.



7.            Considering the law laid down by this Court in

Nandkumar s/o Manohar More (supra) and the aforesaid statement,

we do not accept the submission of learned AGP for the Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 - State that a further period of three months would be

1 Writ Petition No. 1602 of 1998, Judgment dated 20th December 2012

                                        3/5
                                                          909-WP-10697-26.doc


required for the Vigilance Cell Inquiry Report.



8.           In the present case, considering that the father and real

sister of the Petitioner have Certificates of Validity, we dispense with

the Vigilance Cell Inquiry Report and direct the Respondent No. 2-

Scrutiny Committee to decide the validity claim of the Petitioner in

light of the said Validity Certificates. The decision on the validity

claim of Petitioner shall be taken within a period of one week from

today, viz. on or before 3rd September 2026 in order for the

Petitioner, in the event, Certificate of Validity is issued, to submit /

upload the Certificate of Validity in respect of the provisional

allotment of admission granted to the Petitioner by the Respondent

No. 4 – Institute before the cut-off date.



9.           In the event, the decision is adverse to the Petitioner, for

a period of two weeks from the decision, we direct the Respondent

No. 3- State CET Cell not to cancel the admission of the Petitioner

granted in the Respondent No. 4-Institute due to non-submission of

Certificate of Validity before the cut-off date.




                                   4/5
                                                     909-WP-10697-26.doc


10.          The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of with no

order as to costs.




      [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]              [R.I. CHAGLA J.]




                                5/5