Bombay High Court Refuses To Reinstate College Student Who Submitted Caste Validity Certificate After Deadline Due To Delay By Scrutiny Committee

“…it would be not appropriate on the part of this Court to direct the authorities to restore the admission of the Petitioner on the ground that there was no fault on his part in submitting the Validity Certificate on or before the last date fixed for that purpose”,

The court also held that time frame prescribed in Rule 18(5) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 to process the applications is directory, not mandatory.

“no consequence is prescribed nowhere in this rule, if this time limit is not adhered to by the Scrutiny Committee. That only means that this provision of law would have to be understood as directory in nature and not mandatory in nature”, said the court.

The case pertains to an 18-year-old petitioner who had been admitted to JJ School of Arts on a reserved seat with the condition that they must produce a Caste Validity Certificate on or before August 14. The petitioner failed to produce the certificate within the specified time frame, and as a result, their admission was cancelled.

Advocate Shrirang Katneshwarkar for the petitioner contended that the delay in obtaining the Caste Validity Certificate was not the petitioner’s fault. Instead, he attributed the fault to the Scrutiny Committee's failure to adhere to the mandated time frame for processing the application.

The court noted that while Rule 10(5) of the Caste Certificate Rules 2012 sets timelines for the Scrutiny Committee to make its decision, it doesn’t provide any consequences for non-adherence with the timeline. The court added that the rules did not provide for any automatic issuance of the Caste Validity Certificate in case of non-adherence to the timelines.

The court stressed the sanctity of admission deadlines, emphasizing that the admission process must proceed smoothly and should not be hindered by delays in document submissions. It was observed that the admission process involves multiple stages, each of which must be completed within the prescribed time limit to ensure the orderly functioning of the academic year.

It also highlighted the potential consequences of relaxing admission deadlines, including the possibility of subsequent rejections of certificates leading to the wastage of seats. It affirmed that unless a relaxation in policy is necessary to protect fundamental rights or address illegality, the court cannot direct authorities to alter admission policies.

The bench differentiated this case from Iqra Maqsood Ahmed Ansari v. State of Maharashtra, in which the court imposed a penalty on the Scrutiny Committee and reinstated the petitioners’ admission. It observed that in that case, the certificate was ready before the cut-off date, and the delay was only in the delivery of the certificate.

As a result, the court dismissed the petitioner's case.

Case no: Writ Petition No.12653 of 2023

Case Title: Bhushan s/o. Sangappa Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.