1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5309 OF 2009 Balu S/o.Khushal Sonwane Age-34 years, Occu-Service Presently working as Gramsevak R/o.Chandralok Nagari, Kannad, Tq.Kannad, Dist.Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai Copy to be served on The Government Pleader High Court of Judicature of Bombay bench at Aurangabad 2. Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad Through its Chief Executive Officer At Aurangabad, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad 3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kannad, Tq.Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad 4. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through its Member Secretary, Khashmira Bhavan, Near Employment Exchange, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr.A.B.Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3 Mr.U.S.Malte, learned counsel for respondent no.4 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 10/09/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 30/07/2009 by which the petitioner is informed to submit the validity certificate failing which the petitioner would be responsible for the adverse action which may follow. 3. It appears that the petitioner came to be appointed in 1997 as a “Gramsevak” on a seat which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate as the petitioner claims to be belonging to Tokare Koli Scheduled Tribe. It appears that the claim of the petitioner has not been referred to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for verification. The petitioner meanwhile has been served with a communication informing the petitioner to submit his validity certificate failing which certain adverse action would follow. According to us this attitude is wholly unjustified. 3 4. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to the threat of taking adverse action against the petitioner and direct the respondent Zilla Parishad to forward the claim of the petitioner, if not forwarded so far, to the respondent no.4 Scrutiny Committee within 4 weeks from today. We direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 14/10/2009 and further direct the respondent Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Tokare Koli Scheduled Tribe within 8 months of 14/10/2009. We further direct the respondent Zilla Parishad not to initiate any adverse action against the petitioner for his failure to submit the validity certificate during the pendancy of his claim before the Scrutiny Committee. Further action if any would be dependent upon the decision of the respondent Scrutiny Committee. 5 Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms as indicated above with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp5309-09