1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5428 OF 2010 Sunita D/o Masnaji Kuntewad, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Service as Assistant Attendant, R/o Primary Health Centre, Kuppa, Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 42. 2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed. .. Respondents Shri B. S. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri R. P. Phatake, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. 2 DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER P. V. HARDAS, J.] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for 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 impugns the communication issued by respondent No. 3 dated 14.05.2010, informing the petitioner to submit the validity certificate within a stipulated period, failing which the services of the petitioner would be terminated. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner secured employment with the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadev caste which is recognized as the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner came to be appointed on 23.09.1996. Unfortunately caste certificate of the petitioner was never referred to the Scrutiny Committee. Since the caste claim has not been referred to the Scrutiny Committee, according to us it is extremely harsh on the part of the respondent No. 3, to all of a sudden call upon the petitioner to submit validity certificate. 3 4. Since the original certificates have been tendered to the respondent No. 3 at the time of securing employment, we direct the respondent No. 3 to forward the certificate to the Scrutiny Committee i. e. respondent No. 2 within four weeks from today. Upon receipt of the said proposal from the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee, the committee to expeditiously decide the caste claim of the petitioner preferably within nine months from its receipt. During the pendency of the proceedings before the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee, the respondent No. 3 shall not initiate any steps for terminating the services of the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner has not produced the validity certificate. 4. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned communication dated 14.05.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside and rule is made absolute by issuing aforesaid directions with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10