{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5302 OF 2009 Syed Amjed Syed Ahmed R/o Kiradpura, House No.4-11/46 Near Roashn Masjid, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Maharashtra S.C., S.T., De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, OBC & SBC (Regulation of issuance and verification of caste certificate committee Aurangabad 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 4. The District Health Officer Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents No3 and 4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 10th September 2009 {2} ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, 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. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.07.2009 and for directions to respondents No.3 and 4 not to take any adverse action against the petitioner till the caste claim of the petitioner is finally decided. 3. It appears that the petitioner is in continuous service with respondent No.3 since 1992. It is contended that on 08.07.2002, respondent No.4 had called original caste certificate of the petitioner from Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Georai. Accordingly, the Medical Officer submitted original caste certificate of the petitioner to respondent No.4 on 10.07.2002. Since then the same are lying with respondent No.4. It is alleged that the petitioner has no knowledge whether these documents are referred for verification to the Scrutiny Committee or not, as nothing is intimated to the petitioner in this behalf. It appears that all of a sudden, on 30.07.2009, a notice came to be served on the petitioner directing him to produce caste validity certificate within a period of 7 days failing which his services were to be terminated. This order is impugned in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. {3} 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner had submitted caste certificate to respondent No.3. Since the petitioner cannot be faulted for non verification of his caste claim as the proposal is not yet submitted before the Scrutiny Committee, we are inclined to allow this petition. In the result, petition succeeds. We hereby direct the petitioner to submit a proposal, along with relevant documents, before the respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, within a period of 4 weeks from today and further direct the Scrutiny Committee, to decide the caste claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 1 year, thereafter. We also direct respondents No.3 and 4 not to take any adverse action against the petitioner for his failure to submit case validity certificate during the pendency of his claim before the scrutiny committee. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5302-09