VINAYSINGH KISANSINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was filed in June 1988 by the petitioner when he had completed First year MBBS course successfully but, by which date, the respondent No. 1 State Government, had passed an order on llth of May 1988 holding that the petitioner did not belong to the particular Denotified Tribe, under which he had obtained the admission to the medical course. It is this decision of the State Government, dated llth May, 1988, which sought to be challenged by filing this petition. Respondent No. l is the State Government through the Secretary, social Welfare Department. The impugned order is signed by the Deputy secretary of that Department. The second respondent is the Dean of the government Medical College at Aurangabad where the petitioner was prosecuting his studies at the relevant time.

(2.) THE petition came to be admitted on 10/06/1988 and interim relief came to be granted in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D) of the petition whereby the respondents were restrained from cancelling the admission of the petitioner on the basis of the Government order dated llth of May 1988 till the disposal of the petition.

(3.) THE petition reached for final hearing much later in June 2001 before another Division Bench. It was canvassed before that Division Bench, by way of a preliminary objection, that the impugned decision of the state Government dated llth of May 1988 was in exercise of power assumed under Government Resolution of 16/10/1985 and which power could not be said to be legally available to the State Government as claimed under the said Government Resolution. A few decisions of other Division Benches of this Court questioning this power of the State government were cited before that Division Bench. Thus reliance was placed, amongst others, on a decision of a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1268 of 1986 in the case of Miss Ranjana Mohanrao Tonpe v. The state of Maharashtra decided on 12/02/1990 and that of another division Bench in Writ Petition No. 3461 of 1993 decided on 25-8-2000 (Pushpa Thakur v. State of Maharashtra ). These are unreported decisions. However, inspect of this submission having been canvassed before the division Bench, the Division Bench observed in paragraph 5 of its judgment rendered on 19th June 2001 as follows: