Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking SEBC Category Consideration for TET Examination — Petitioner Failed to Produce Valid Caste Certificate Within Prescribed Time Limit

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Arjun Baban Jadhav, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court seeking directions to the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2 (the State of Maharashtra), to treat him as belonging to the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) category for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) conducted on 23.11.2025. The petitioner also sought revision of his result to declare him qualified in Paper-I and Paper-II of the TET under the SEBC category and inclusion of his name in the merit list for promotion to the post of Kendra Pramukh. The facts were narrow: the petitioner had applied for the TET examination but did not possess a valid caste certificate at the time of application or within the prescribed time limit. The respondent refused to consider his application under the SEBC category. The legal issue was whether the petitioner could claim SEBC benefits without a valid caste certificate. The court analyzed that the rules required submission of a caste certificate by a specified date, which the petitioner failed to do. The court held that no mandamus could be issued to compel the respondent to act contrary to the rules. The petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to treat him as belonging to SEBC category for TET examination - The court held that the petitioner failed to produce a valid caste certificate within the prescribed time limit and thus cannot claim the benefit of SEBC category - Held that no mandamus can be issued to compel the respondent to act contrary to the rules (Paras 1-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered under the SEBC category for the TET examination despite not having a valid caste certificate at the time of application.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed.

Law Points

  • Caste certificate requirement
  • SEBC category
  • Teachers Eligibility Test
  • time limit for submission
  • Article 226
  • Mandamus
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 105

WP No. 7734 of 2026

2026-06-30

G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe

Mr. Preeti Walimbe a/w R. Bhoir for Petitioner, Mr. Sumedh Modak a/w. Rohit Gogte for Respondent No.2

Arjun Baban Jadhav

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to treat petitioner as SEBC for TET examination.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought direction to Respondent No.2 to treat him as SEBC category for TET, revise his result, and include his name in merit list for promotion.

Filing Reason

Respondent No.2 did not consider petitioner's application under SEBC category for TET examination.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered under SEBC category for TET without a valid caste certificate within prescribed time.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he belongs to SEBC category and should be considered accordingly. Respondent argued that petitioner failed to produce valid caste certificate within time limit.

Ratio Decidendi

A petitioner cannot claim the benefit of a reserved category without producing a valid caste certificate within the prescribed time limit; no mandamus can be issued to compel the respondent to act contrary to the rules.

Judgment Excerpts

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:- The facts lie in a narrow compass:-

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff Sub-Contractor for Unpaid Construction Work. Court holds that defendant's denial of liability is not bona fide and raises no triable issue under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Sole Eyewitness Testimony. The court held that the trial court's acquittal was not perverse as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt u...