Bombay High Court
SANSKRUTI SACHIN THAKURversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The cancellation of the petitioner’s admission was unjustified as the delay in submitting the caste validity certificate was not attributable to her and a seat was available in the Scheduled Tribe category, therefore the order cancelling her admission was quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, admitted provisionally to a B.E. Computer Engineering program under the Scheduled Tribe category, had her admission cancelled by the CET for failing to produce a caste validity certificate by the stipulated date. The certificate was issued the next day due to the Scrutiny Committee’s delay, and the petitioner sought restoration of her admission. The court examined whether the delay could be attributed to the petitioner and considered the availability of a seat in the Scheduled Tribe category. Relying on the precedent of Anisa Arashad Diwan v. State of Maharashtra and noting that the seat remained vacant, the court held that the cancellation was unjustified. Consequently, the order cancelling the admission was quashed and the petitioner’s admission was restored upon submission of the certificate.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in submitting the caste validity certificate can be attributed to the petitioner.
- Whether the cancellation of admission for non‑submission of the certificate is justified when a seat remains available.
- Whether the precedent set in Anisa Arashad Diwan v. State of Maharashtra is applicable to the present facts.
Subjects
- Admission cancellation
- Caste validity certificate
- Scheduled Tribe reservation
- Writ petition
- Quashing order
- Seat availability
- Procedural delay
Judgment
1 903-wp-12157-
2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12157 OF 2026
Sanskruti Sachin Thakur ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary and Others ...Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji a/w. Mr. Vishwajit S. Sharma, for the Petitioner.
Dr. Dhruti Kapadia a/w. Ms. Kavita Dhanuka, for the Respondent / CET
Cell.
Mr. Nitin Dhumal, for Respondent No.3.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w. Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP, for the Respondent /
State.
-----------------
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE Date:
2026.09.21
17:45:59
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
+0530
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATED : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of
the parties.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting
aside of the impugned Order of Respondent No.2 dated 7 th September 2026
cancelling the admission of the Petitioner in B.E.- Computer Engineering
Degree Course for the Academic Year 2026-2027 with further direction to
Mamta Kale 1/7
2 903-wp-12157-
2026.doc
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the admission of the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner was granted admission by Respondent No.3
College provisionally under Reserved Category of Scheduled Tribe and the
Petitioner had also paid necessary fees. This is pursuant to the Petitioner
appearing for Entrance Examination conducted by Respondent No.2 CET as
candidate of Scheduled Tribe and Respondent No.2 CET allotting the seat to
the Petitioner for Second Year of B.E. Computer Engineering Degree Course
for the Academic Year 2026-2027 under the category of Scheduled Tribe in
the College of Respondent No.3 on 14th August 2026.
4. The Respondent No.4 Scrutiny Committee was seized of the
proceedings of the Caste Validity Claim of the Petitioner and the Petitioner
was granted a Tribe Certificate as belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe
Category on 2nd September 2026.
5. The Respondent No.4 Scrutiny Committee had called the
Petitioner for hearing on 7 th September 2026 and after hearing the father of
the Petitioner, the matter was closed for Orders.
6. The Petitioner received a text message from Respondent No.2
CET Cell at 10:44 a.m. on 7th September 2026 stating that the Petitioner
had failed to produce the Caste Validity Certificate and hence her admission
was converted to Open and the benefit of the Scheduled Tribe Category had
been cancelled and that she was now eligible for Institute Level Admission.
7. On the very next date viz., 8 th September 2026, Respondent
Mamta Kale 2/7
3 903-wp-12157-
2026.doc
No.4 Scrutiny Committee granted Validity Certificate in favour of the
Petitioner as belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe. It was upon receipt of
the Validity Certificate that the Petitioner, along with father, approached the
Office of Respondent No.2 CET and apprised them of the Validity Certificate
granted by Respondent No.4 Scrutiny Committee and requested restoration
of the Petitioner’s admission in the Second Year of B.E. Computer
Engineering in the College of Respondent No.3. However, Respondent No.2
CET Cell informed the Petitioner that, in view of her not producing the
Validity Certificate on the stipulated date viz. 7 th September 2026, her
admission cannot be restored. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition has
been filed.
8. Mr. Bhangoji, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
submitted that the present case is covered by the Judgement of this Court in
Anisa Arashad Diwan Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.9579
of 2022 dated 22nd February 2024, wherein a Division Bench of this Court
considered a similar case where there was delay in submitting the Validity
Certificate by the Petitioner. This Court had considered the delay in non
submitting the Caste Validity Certificate on or before the admission date in
the facts of that case could not be attributed to the Petitioner and,
accordingly, cancellation of admission by Respondent No.2 CET cannot be
justified. This Court was conscious of the fact that, after the cut-off date,
the seats cannot be filled up, but in the facts of the present case it was not a
Mamta Kale 3/7
4 903-wp-12157-
2026.doc
case of filling up the seat after the cut-off date. The issue was regarding
issuance of the caste validity certificate after the cut-off date.
9. This Court had observed that the cancellation of the
Petitioner’s admission in her third year of studies would only result in the
said seat going vacant thus depriving a candidate from the Other Backward
Class (OBC) category for whom it was reserved from pursuing the course.
No other candidate from the OBC category can now be admitted in the said
course.
10. This Court had quashed and set aside the cancellation of the
admission of the Petitioner and the Respondents were directed to permit the
Petitioner to complete her course of B.Tech. Mechanical Engineering by
permitting her to appear for the exams, and, if, for any year, the marksheet
was not issued, then the same was directed to be issued forthwith.
11. Mr. Bhangoji has accordingly sought a similar Order as was
passed in the aforesaid decision.
12. Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.4
CET Cell, has not denied that the cancellation of the Petitioner’s admission
was on the ground of non submission of Caste Validity Certificate as per the
Schedule of the CAP Rounds which had been issued by Respondent No.4
CET Cell. She submitted that, in the event, seats are available in the
Respondent No.3 College, upon the Petitioner submitting the Caste Validity
Certificate, it would be open to the Respondent No.3 College to grant the
Mamta Kale 4/7
5 903-wp-12157-
2026.doc
admission.
13. Mr. Nitin Dhumal, the learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.3 College states, on instructions, that seats are in fact
available in B.E.- Computer Engineering Degree Course for the Academic
Year 2026-2027, in the Scheduled Tribe Category, and upon the Petitioner
submitting the Caste Validity Certificate, the admission of the Petitioner,
which had been cancelled, can be restored and a seat can be made available
to the Petitioner in that category. The statement is accepted.
14. Having considered the submissions as well as the statement
made by the Respondent No.3 College that a seat is in fact available in the
Schedule Tribe Category, we are of the view that facts of the present case
are similar to the case which was before this Court viz. Anisa Arashad
Diwan (supra). Here also the fault does not lie with the Petitioner in non
submission of Caste Validity Certificate and delay in non submission of
Caste Validity Certificate could not be attributed to the Petitioner. On this
ground cancellation of the Petitioner’s admission cannot be justified.
15. The Petitioner had obtained Caste Validity Certificate one day
after the stipulated date viz. 8 th September 2026 and that was due to
Respondent No.4 Scrutiny Committee failing to decide the Caste Validity
Claim of the Petitioner within the prescribed period of six months as laid
down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Department, 1994 SCC(6) 241.
Mamta Kale 5/7
6 903-wp-12157-
2026.doc
16. In view thereof and considering that the Petitioner had secured
admission in Respondent No.3 College provisionally under Reserved
category of Scheduled Tribe and also paid necessary fees on 5 th August 2026
and that the Petitioner’s admission had been cancelled on 7 th September
2026 due to non submission of Caste Validity Certificate and which was
furnished on the very next day, viz., 8 th September 2026, we are inclined to
allow the present Petition by setting aside the cancellation of the Petitioner’s
admission and restoring her admission. This is particularly because there is
a seat available in the Scheduled Tribe Category, which fact has been
confirmed by Respondent No.3 College.
17. Accordingly, the following Order is passed
ORDER
1. The impugned Order of Respondent No.2 dated 7 th
September 2026 cancelling the admission of the Petitioner
in the B.E. Computer Engineering Degree Course, for the
Academic Year 2026-27, is quashed and set aside.
2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall restore the
admission of the Petitioner in B.E. Computer Engineering
Degree Course for the Academic Year 2026-27 in
Respondent No.3 College upon the Petitioner submitting
the Caste Validity Certificate belonging to the Scheduled
Mamta Kale 6/7
7 903-wp-12157-
2026.doc
Tribe Category.
3. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
4. This Order is passed in the peculiar facts of the
present case and it should not be treated as precedent.
5. Needless to state that, in the event the fees have
been refunded to the Petitioner, the same shall be paid
again by the Petitioner towards restoration of her
admission in Respondent No.3 – College.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
Mamta Kale 7/7
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.