- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7282/2010 Umadevi d/o Dilip Magar, age 29 yrs., occu.service (Sr.Asst. Panchayat Samiti, Osmanabad) r/o Tuljapur Tq.Tuljapur Dist.Osmanabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Social Welfare Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. 3] The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4] The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, through its Member & Secretary, Divisioinal Committee No.3, Administrative Building, Latur. ...Respondents... ..... Shri K.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1, 3 & 4. Respondent no.2 served. ..... - 2 - CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 24.09.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 12.7.2010 issued by the respondent no.2 to the effect that if the petitioner does not submit the caste validity certificate prior to 15.8.2010, her services shall be terminated. 3] The petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Nomadic Tribe, was appointed as Senior Assistant in Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. The claim of the petitioner has been forwarded by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.4 – committee. However, since it is not decided, the respondent no.2 has issued the impugned communication. 4] We find that on account of no fault on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner would be deprived of her services. The delay is on the part of the respondent no.4 in deciding the claim of the petitioner. - 3 - 5] In that view of the matter, the petition will have to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of following order: [1] The respondent no.4 is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today. [2] The impugned communication dated 12.7.2010 issued to the petitioner is set aside. [3] The respondent no.2 is directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner till the decision by the respondent no.4 – committee and for a further period of four weeks in the event any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed by the respondent no.4, only on the ground of non submission of the caste validity certificate. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c2491050