SHIVAM EKNATH JAMADARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:42586-DB




                                               (1)                      wp12486.26


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          903 WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 OF 2026

                                 SHIVAM EKNATH JAMADAR
                                         VERSUS
                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

           Mr. S.G. Bhalerao h/f. Mr. Y.R. Barhate, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for the respondent-State.
           Mr. Rohit S. Sarvadnya, Sr. Panel Counsel for respondent Nos.5&6–UOI.

                                            CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                    JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                            DATE  : 16.09.2026

           PC :-

           01.          Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP for

           the     respondent-State   and   learned   Advocate   Mr.   Sarvadnya     for

           respondent Nos. 5 and 6.



           02.          This petition is mainly filed seeking direction to the Scrutiny

           Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within stipulated

           period. The petitioner is desirous of taking admission to MBBS course

           from reserved category.     For that purpose he obtained tribe certificate

           from Sub-Divisional Officer, Ausa-Renapur on 10.01.2026 as belonging to

           Scheduled Tribe. It is thereafter on 02.04.2026 the petitioner submitted

           proposal with respondent No.3 – Scrutiny Committee for verification of
                                    (2)                      wp12486.26


his tribe claim. The petitioner, thereafter appeared for CET examination

conducted for medical courses from the category of scheduled tribe.

However, as per the case of the petitioner, abruptly his category came to

be changed from scheduled tribe to open as he could not submit validity

certificate. The petitioner is therefore before this Court for the relief of

direction to the Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner

and to direct respondent No.2 CET cell to maintain category of the

petitioner as scheduled tribe.



03.         Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that

category of the petitioner is changed from scheduled tribe to open

without any information to the petitioner.    The CET cell could not have

converted seat of petitioner from scheduled tribe to open by showing

remark as invalid CVC.    As on today, there is no rejection of the tribe

claim of the petitioner as well.   It is also pointed out by the learned

Advocate for the petitioner that there is already validity granted to his

father and real uncle. He thus prays for allowing this writ petition.



04.         Learned AGP and learned Advocate appearing for respondent

Nos.5 and 6 opposed the prayer for direction to retain category.        They

submit that conduct of the petitioner shows that he approached the
                                  (3)                     wp12486.26


Scrutiny Committee late, when he was seeking admission to MBBS

course.   It is general knowledge that validity is required while making

application for any admission or taking part in the admission process.

The Government Resolution dated 10.12.2019 provides that a person

desirous of taking admission to the professional course has to apply

immediately after he takes admission to the 11 th standard. It is for the

institution thereafter to send the proposal before 30 th November of that

year, so that process can be completed within a reasonable time.       He

thus submits that the petitioner cannot blame the Authority for not

completing validity proceeding as the petitioner himself approached very

late to the Authority.



05.         Learned Advocate for the petitioner during the course of

arguments, relied upon order passed by Nagpur Bench of this Court in

Writ Petition No. 6545 of 2026 dated 24.08.2026, order of this Court at

Principal Seat in Writ Petition No. 11526 of 2026 dated 03.09.2026, order

dated 04.09.2026 in Writ Petition No. 4410 of 2026 of Circuit Bench of

this Court at Kolhapur, orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP

(C) 31474 of 2026 and SLP (C) No.30636 of 2026.

.           Learned AGP and learned Advocate appearing for respondent

Nos. 5 and 6 rely upon order passed by this Court dated 08.09.2026 in
                                   (4)                     wp12486.26


Writ Petition No. 11836 of 2026.



06.        In the orders passed by this Court at Nagpur, Kolhapur and

Mumbai, the Court allowed to take admission against reserved seat

pending claim proceeding before the Committee.         The Hon’ble Apex

Court has passed interim order granting relief of admission. In SLP (C)

No. 31474 of 2026 is only where the petition was preferred where order

was passed by this Court by permitting to file review application. This

Court, thereafter considered the review application and passed order in

the Review Application No. 193 of 2026 by order dated 10.09.2026. This

Court has considered judgment in the case of Dilip Vitthal Bambale &

Ors. Vs. Vinitkumar Motiram Totlod & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.

11234-48 of 2017, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that

grant of admission by way of interim relief is not advisable. From the

orders of this Court at Nagpur, Mumbai and Kolhapur, it is seen that

judgment in the case of Dilip Vitthal Bambale (supra) was not pointed

out. Now it is well settled that in the matters of admission, no interim

relief be granted.   This Court has already dealt with the submission in

order dated 08.09.2026 in Writ Petition No. 11836 of 2026 and also in

the Review application. While entertaining writ petition, this Court needs

to see conduct of the parties. To claim equitable or extraordinary relief,
                                    (5)                     wp12486.26


it is necessary for the petitioner to show that he has exercised due

diligence. In the present case the petitioner made an application for the

first time on 27.08.2025 and certificate is issued on 10.01.2026.        He

approached the Committee only on 02.04.2026.           There is no reason

coming from the petitioner as to when he was desirous of taking

admission to medical course, why he did not immediately submit

proposal after taking admission to 11 th standard.       There is also no

explanation coming from the petitioner as to why he was late in

approaching the Committee even after issuance of tribe certificate by the

learned SDO. To expect at the fag end of the admission process every

authority to work promptly is not possible. From all these reasons, this

Court finds that looking to very short span remaining, it is not possible to

grant any interim relief.



07.         Learned AGP on instructions submits that even for completing

validity proceeding, at least four months time is required as vigilance cell

report is not received.



08.         No case is made out on merit by the petitioner. Secondly, if

such interim relief is granted, it necessarily deprives someone who is

seeking admission to said course having validity in his hand. The person
                                           (6)                      wp12486.26


who approaches the Committee in time and obtains validity by showing

due deligence, suffers because of such interim order. In case, the claim

of the petitioner is invalidated, in such case even the petitioner suffers

and loses admission, causing ultimate loss to the society.             It is in this

view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant interim relief.



09.                Considering all the above, this Court finds that only relief that

can be granted in this petition is to direct the Scrutiny Committee to

decide claim of the petitioner within four months from today.



10.                With the above, this petition stands disposed off.            The

respondent-Scrutiny Committee to decide tribe claim of the petitioner

within four months from today.




         [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                       [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]


snk/2026/Sep26/wp12486.26