1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6362 OF 2010 Shankar S/o Bapana Totawar, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Service At present as Primary Teacher, R/o At Post Daheli, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded, At Present C/o Zilla Parishad Primary School, Deodi, Centre Pimparkhed, Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, M. S. Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Schedule tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division Aurangabad. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Z. P. Beed., Tq. & Dist. Beed. .. .. Respondents Shri S. A. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1. Shri P. S. Patil, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Shri N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. 2 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH JULY, 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. The petitioner who claims to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, came to be appointed on a post which was reserved for S. T. category candidates. The petitioner submitted his original caste certificate to the respondent No. 3 along with necessary documents. Undisputedly, the caste claim of the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondent/Scrutiny Committee and during this process the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. The termination came to be stayed for a period of two months and petitioner continus to be in employment. 3. According to us, the petitioner cannot be faulted for not producing the validity certificate as the claim has not been decided by the respondent/Scrutiny Committee. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set 3 aside the impugned order of termination and direct the petitioner to appear before the committee on 30th August, 2010 and further direct the respondent/scrutiny committee to decide the pending caste claim of the petitioner within one year from 30th August, 2010. 4. Since the caste claim of the petitioner has been directed to be referred to the respondent/Scrutiny Committee, we direct the respondent No. 3 not take any adverse action against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the validity certificate. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10