Ph.D. Aspirant from Nomadic Tribe-C Category Seeks Judicial Intervention Over Alleged Misallocation of Reserved Seat
In a significant development, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench has issued a notice to Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) in response to a writ petition filed by Dipak Namdev Kharat. Kharat, a Ph.D. aspirant from the Nomadic Tribe-C (NT-C) category, alleged that his rightful seat, reserved under the NT-C category, was unjustly allocated to an open category candidate.
The court, comprising Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta, heard the grievance of Kharat, who had successfully cleared the entrance examination and participated in the interview process. Despite his qualifications, Kharat's name was conspicuously absent from the provisional admission list published on February 3, 2026. This list featured 26 candidates, but none from the NT-C category, sparking concerns about adherence to reservation norms.
Kharat, represented by Advocate S.D. Borkute, contended that the university had failed to communicate the outcome of a sub-committee's deliberations on his grievance, which he had raised immediately after the provisional list was released. This sub-committee was allegedly established following a Doctoral Council meeting on February 11, 2026. Despite assurances of a timely response, Kharat has yet to receive any formal communication regarding the resolution of his complaint.
The court, acknowledging the urgency of the matter, has directed the issuance of a notice to the respondents, returnable by March 24, 2026. In a bid to expedite proceedings, the court has permitted Kharat to serve notice through alternative means, including email and speed post, and required him to file an affidavit of service by the returnable date.
This case highlights ongoing challenges in the implementation of reservation policies within educational institutions, where adherence to constitutional mandates remains a contentious issue. The court's intervention underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring compliance with reservation policies, particularly in higher education.
As the legal process unfolds, the outcome of this case could have broader implications for reservation practices at educational institutions across the country, reaffirming the importance of transparent and equitable admissions processes.
Bottom Line:
Reservation policy - Grievance regarding non-allocation of reserved seat for NT-C category in Ph.D. programme - Allegation that the reserved seat was allotted to Open Category - Petitioner seeks resolution of the issue and communication of sub-committee's recommendations regarding the grievance.
Statutory provision(s): None explicitly mentioned in the judgment.
