1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6002 OF 2009 Dilip s/o Bapurao Chhabilwad, Age 36 years, Occu.Service, R/o At Tanda (Bk.), Post Balanagar, Tq. Paithan, 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 Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Paithan, Taluka Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad .. Respondents Shri A.R.Koralkar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Shri R.P.Phatke, 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 : 9th 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. We have heard Shri Koralkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dighe, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Shri R.P.Phatke, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri U.B.Bondar, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.8.2009 informing the petitioner to submit the validity certificate within a particular time; failing which the services of the petitioner were likely to be terminated. 4. The petitioner obtained employment on a seat which was reserved for scheduled tribe candidate some time in the year 1992. Since then claim of the petitioner was never referred to the respondent – committee for verification. Today also the claim has not been referred. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that within two weeks from today, the claim of the petitioner would be 3 referred to the respondent – committee for verification. We accept that statement as an undertaking to the Court. We make it clear that in the event the petitioner does not submit his claim within two weeks from today, action in accordance with law would be liable to be taken against the petitioner, including the disciplinary action of termination of service which the respondents may initiate. 5. Since the claim of the petitioner had never been referred to the respondent – committee, we are inclined to allow this petition. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to the threat of termination of the services of the petitioner on his failure to produce the validity certificate and direct the petitioner to submit his claim within two weeks from today and also direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent – scrutiny committee on 12th October 2009 and further direct the committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within six months of 12th October 2009. During the pendency of the proceedings before the committee, we direct the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the validity certificate. 4 6. Rule is thus made absolute with the aforesaid directions with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/6002.09wp 5