(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11012 OF 2010 Raju s/o. Pandurangrao Yepurwar, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Service as Sr. Clerk, In the office of Principal, ITI, Jalna, R/o. C/o. Shri Manoj Darbastwar, Yadav Navas, Near Jayashri Hospital, Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Department of Vocational Education and Training, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, Bhadkal Gate, Aurangabad. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Beside Tribal Employment Exchange, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Leave to implead the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee as party / respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th September 2010, passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No. 151/2010, and the order dated 29th November 2010, in Miscellaneous Application No. 366 of 2010 (in Original Application No. 151/2010), passed by the same Tribunal. (3) 4. We do not propose to go into correctness or otherwise of the impugned orders, inasmuch as, we find that the petitioner is entitled to continuation in service till the caste claim of the petitioner is decided by the respondent no.3 / Committee. 5. The petitioner is appointed as Senior Clerk with the respondent no.2, against a post reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Chhatri" which is notified as Scheduled Tribe. The claim of the petitioner for considering validity of the certificate is pending before the respondent no.3 / Committee. However, the said Committee has not yet decided the matter and, as such, the respondent no.2 has issued a communication to the petitioner, directing him to submit the validity certificate within a stipulated period and has further stated that in the event, the validity certificate is not submitted within the stipulated period, his services shall stand terminated. 6. We find that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the delay on the part of respondent no.3 / Committee in deciding claim of the petitioner. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (4) (i) The respondent no.3 / Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of six months from today. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.3 / Scrutiny Committee on 10th January 2011 and, as such, the requirement of formal notice by the Committee, to the petitioner, shall stand waived. (iii) The services of the petitioner shall not be terminated till the respondent no.3 / Scrutiny Committee decides the claim of the petitioner, and for a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the petitioner, in the event, an order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11012