1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5786 OF 2009 Yamakant s/o Govindrao Pallewad, Age 32 years, Occu.Service, R/o Shara Hormony, Kanchanwadi, Plot No.6, Wing No.A-3, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Through its Dy.Director (Research), Aurangabad 3. The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad through its Chief Executive Officer, Aurangabad 4. The Block Development Officer (Education), Panchayat Samiti, Paithan, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad .. Respondents Shri A.H.Koralkar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent No.1 Shri P.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 3 and 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 1st September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner who came to be appointed in the year 1999 apprehends the discontinuance of his services on account of failure to produce the validity certificate from the competent scrutiny committee. Unquestionably, the petitioner had not submitted his certificate to the respondent – scrutiny committee for verification and it also appears that the certificate submitted by the petitioner as belonging to Mahadev Koli – Scheduled Tribe was never referred to scrutiny committee. In that light, the petitioner is served with the impugned order directing him to produce the validity certificate within a particular time frame, failing which the services of the petitioner are likely to be terminated. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Shri P.S.Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri U.B.Bondar, on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. Since the petitioner had been appointed in the year 1999 and unfortunately, his claim had not been referred to the scrutiny committee and he has expressed his 3 willingness before us to submit necessary certificate to the respondent – scrutiny committee for verification, within two weeks from today, we are inclined to allow this petition. We, accordingly direct the petitioner to submit his caste certificate accompanied by all the documents on which he proposes to rely before the scrutiny committee within two weeks from today, if not submitted earlier. In order to ensure that the claim of the petitioner is adjudicated expeditiously by the scrutiny committee, we direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent – scrutiny committee on 16th September 2009 and direct the respondent – scrutiny committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within six months of 16th September 2009, in accordance with law. Till the claim of the petitioner is decided by the scrutiny committee, within the time frame provided by us, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner for his failure to produce the validity certificate. Further action, in accordance with law, to be initiated against the petitioner only on the basis of the order of the scrutiny committee. 4. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order to that extent and direct the respondents not to take any adverse action against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the validity certificate from the scrutiny committee. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/5786.09wp 5