{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3079 OF 2009 Santosh Zumbarlal Raut R/o Chaure Galli, Subhash Road, Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 01. The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 02. The Principal Secretary, Social Justice Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 03. Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jati, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Class, Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 Aurangabad Through is Member Secretary RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Gangakhedkar h/f Mr.S.B.Rajebhosale, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.3. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 20 th July 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, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for various reliefs, which are - (i) Issuance of a necessary writ to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for issuing a validity certificate to the petitioner and; (ii) Directions to respondents not to dislodge the petitioner from the select list on account of failure of the petitioner to produce the validity certificate within the time stipulated therein. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, learned Addl.G.P. on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, on behalf of respondent No.3. 4. It appears that the petitioner was initially working and officiating as Additional Treasury Officer. The said appointment of the petitioner was against general category and not from reserved category though the petitioner claims to be belonging to “Mali” caste, which is recognized as Other Backward Class, in the State of {3} Maharashtra. Sometime in the year 2004, the petitioner appeared in competitive examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission and was declared to have passed the said examination successfully. The petitioner accordingly came to be selected for the post of Deputy Collector (Grade “A”). The selection of the petitioner was against the seat reserved for OBC candidate. By communication dated 23.09.2008, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that the name of the petitioner figures in the select list and certain time was afforded to the petitioner for producing caste validity certificate from respondent scrutiny committee. Claim of the petitioner, as belonging to Mali caste, which is recognized as OBC, came to be considered by respondent No.3 Scrutiny Committee and by majority, the claim came to be validated, with the Chairman dissenting with the majority view. The aforesaid action of the Scrutiny Committee was well within the period provided by respondent No.2 to the petitioner for submitting validity certificate. However, the respondent Scrutiny Committee did not issue validity certificate on the basis of the judgment of the majority and, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file petition in this Court on 13th May 2009, particularly for the said reliefs. Prior to the institution of the petition, the petitioner was served with a communication dated 04.05.2009 calling upon the petitioner giving ultimatum to him for production of the validity certificate latest by 15.05.2009, failing which it would be treated that the petitioner was not interested in the said post to which he was selected. Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, learned counsel for {4} respondent No.3 Scrutiny Committee has expressed regrets on behalf of the Committee in not issuing the validity certificate, as according to the learned counsel, the respondent Scrutiny Committee was in a quandary as to how the the validity certificate is to be issued, if the judgment is a majority judgment. According to learned counsel for the Committee, the aforesaid controversy has been resolved and the Scrutiny Committee would now be issuing the validity certificate to the petitioner within one week from today. However, mere issuance of a validity certificate would not come to the rescue of the petitioner unless and until the communication dated 04.05.2009 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner obviously cannot be faulted for the delay which has arisen for the submission of the validity certificate. If the validity certificate had been issued to the petitioner by the respondent scrutiny committee immediately after the claim was adjudicated, the petitioner would not have been required to file the present petition. 5. Be that as it may, we accordingly allow this petition accepting the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 Committee that the validity certificate would be issued to the petitioner within one week from today. We hereby quash and aside the communication dated 04.05.2009 and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of the post to which he is selected, if the petitioner produces the validity certificate within one month from today. {5} 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Copy of this order, duly authenticated may be furnished to either counsel on request. Learned AGP undertakes to communicate this decision to respondents No.1 and 2. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp3079-09