1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8681 OF 2009 Prakash Ratilal Gavle, Age 25 years, Occu.Service, Presently working as Peon, in the Office of District Superintendent and Agriculture Office, Aurangabad, originally R/o Halda, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Agricultural Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The District Superintendent and Agricultural Officer, Aurangabad 3. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Aurangabad 4. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nandurbar .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.G.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Shri P.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 22nd March 2010 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. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted his certificate for verification before the respondent – scrutiny committee and the said proceedings are pending consideration before the respondent – scrutiny committee. We accept the aforesaid statement made to us as an undertaking before the Court that his claim is pending consideration before the scrutiny committee and the petitioner would appear before the scrutiny committee as and when called upon by the scrutiny committee. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the claim, the petitioner is threatened with termination of his service on account of failure of the petitioner to submit the validity certificate since the petitioner had been appointed on a reserved post. 3. Since a statement is made before us that the claim of the petitioner is pending, which statement we have accepted, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent – scrutiny committee to expeditiously decide the tribe claim of the petitioner and in any event not later than nine months from today. In order to ensure expeditious 3 disposal of the tribe claim of the petitioner by the committee, we direct the petitioner to appear before the committee on 29th March 2010. We further direct the respondents not to take any precipitative action of termination of the services of the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the validity certificate. The further coercive action would be determined on the basis of the validity certificate, if any issued by the scrutiny committee. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/8681.09wp)