PRIYANKA OMPRAKASH PANWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review has been sought of the judgment delivered by this Court on 19th December, 2007. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court in order to impugn the correctness of the judgment. On 3rd November, 2008, the following order was passed by the Supreme Court : "Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition as he would like to move the High Court. Permission is granted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

(2.) The claim of the petitioner to belong to the Khatik community, which is a Scheduled Caste, was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee was impugned in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. (Writ Petition 5084 of 2004)'. The petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 7th March, 2005 holding that there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record in so far as the finding of the Scrutiny Committee was concerned. However, in pursuance of the liberty granted by the Division Bench to the petitioner to submit a representation to the State in so far as her admission to the medical course is concerned, the petitioner submitted a representation. The petitioner was informed that her admission which was granted against the reserved category, namely as a member of a Scheduled Caste was cancelled pursuant to a direction of the Director of Medical Education and Research. That communication was impugned before this Court in a writ petition which resulted in the judgment dated 19th December, 2007 of which a review has been sought.

(3.) While dismissing the writ petition, this Court has relied upon the provisions of section 10(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000. Section 10(3) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any Act, any Degree, Diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by a person after securing admission on the basis of a false Caste Certificate shall stand cancelled on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Similarly, under sub-section (1) of section 10, the invalidation of a Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee will entail the debarment of the candidate from the Educational Institution. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court observed as follows : "The balance between the equitable consideration of protecting the interest of a student who has pursued his education and the public interest in protecting the reserved categories against the usurpation of their constitutional entitlements by imposters has now been made by the State Legislature. ... The Legislature has expressly stipulated that a degree or diploma obtained on the basis of a caste claim which is invalidated shall stand cancelled. In the face of an express legislative provision, this Court shall not be justified in exercising its equitable jurisdiction. Considerations of equity that guide the Court in constitutional adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution must be in accordance with the law enacted by the Legislature. ... Stringent provisions have been made to protect the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories. To dilute those provisions by importing equitable considerations for a candidate who has usurped benefits would be to defeat the law. The legislation was in this case conceived in the interests of protecting the constitutional scheme of reservations from usurpation by those who are not entitled."