SUMEYANFREEM SHAIKH VAZIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The Petitioner it appears was admitted to the D. Ed, course during the academic year 2002-03 against the reserved seat considering the mark-sheet annexed at exhibit A. According to the Petitioner, she had submitted the caste certificate to the college and college authorities have not forwarded the caste certificate to the Competent Committee for validation of the same. In the mean time the Petitioner completed the D. Ed. Course, but the Respondent No. 2 has not declared the results of the examination. It is on this basis that the Petitioner submits that Respondent no. 2 should be directed to declare the results of the examination and that the Petitioner undertakes that in the event the Committee invalidates the Petitioner's caste claim, the petitioner would not claim any benefit against the reserved post. Learned counsel for the Petitioner draws our attention to various Judgments passed by this Court as also to the Notification of the State Government in support of his contention that the results should be declared.

(3.) The concept of reservation is by way of affirmative action by the State to meet the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the constitutional philosophy behind Article 15. In these circumstances, if candidates who are not eligible, apply and get admitted and on passing the examination the only consequence they have to suffer is that, they would only be denied an opportunity to apply for jobs against reserved categories post, this may amount tantamount to playing fraud on the Constitution. We can understand those cases where fraud is not practiced by the petitioners. But in cases where it is so practiced, we see no reason, merely because the Petitioner has completed two years Course, why Petitioner should be allowed to complete the Course or retain the degree, considering the clear mandate and specific provisions of the Act.