(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9386 OF 2010 Vimalbai d/o. Ashruba Mane, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Kuppa, Taluka : Vadwani, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District : Beed. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. B.S. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for respondent no.3. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The limited grievance raised by the petitioner, in the present petition, is that though the petitioner has submitted the necessary papers to the respondent no.3, for forwarding his claim for validation, of belonging to "Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner has been served with a notice of termination dated 14th May 2010. However, the said order dated 14th May 2010 came to be stayed by the Zilla Parishad, till 18th September 2010, and in the meantime, the petitioner along with others were directed to furnish caste (tribe) validity certificate. 3. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the ends of justice would be met by passing the following order. 4. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (3) (i) The respondent no.3 shall forward all the papers to the respondent no.2, regarding the claim of the petitioner, of belonging to "Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe. (ii) The respondent no.2 / Committee shall decide the caste (tribe) claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of communication from the respondent no.3. (iii) The services of the petitioner shall not be terminated by the respondent no.3 till the decision of the respondent no.2 / Committee, and for a further period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of communication, in the event, decision of the respondent no.2 is adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9386