{1} wp1140410.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11404 OF 2010 Balaji s/o Kishanrao Yarmunwad, age: 31 years, Occ: Service, R/o Yashwant Niwas, Baliraja Market, Shivaji Chowk, Loha, Tq.Loha, District Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. 2 The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, through Assistant Commissioner / Vice President, Kashimira Building, Employment Office, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad. Respondents Mr. M.V.Ghatge, advocate for petitioner Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. R.P.Phatke, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 16 th December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.): 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard {2} wp1140410.odt finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioner is a selected candidate by the Zilla Parishad for the post of Extension Officer (Education), Class-II. One of the conditions in respect of selection of the petitioner is that as he is appointed as against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe, he will have to produce the validity certificate issued by the competent authority. The petitioner is in receipt of the communication dated 03.12.2010 from Respondent No.1 directing him to produce the caste validity certificate within a period of ten days and on failure thereof, his selection shall stand cancelled. 3 The petitioner contends that proposal in respect of validation of his caste claim has already been tendered to the Scrutiny Committee – Respondent No.2 herein and matter is under consideration of the Committee. 4 In this view of the matter, petition can be disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2 to decide the pending proposal within a stipulated period. Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee is directed to take decision on the proposal tendered by the petitioner in respect of validation of his caste claim within a period of six months from today. The petitioner states that he was given hearing by the Committee on 21st September, 2010. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee for the purposes of {3} wp1140410.odt further inquiry, if any, on 17th January, 2011 and as such, no separate notice requiring presence of the petitioner before the Committee would be necessary. Respondent No.2 – Committee shall take decision on the proposal tendered by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law within the prescribed period. Until decision by the Scrutiny Committee in respect of proposal tendered by the petitioner regarding validity of his caste claim, Respondent No.1 shall not cancel selection of the petitioner to the post of Extension Officer (Education), Class-II. 5 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1140410