1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4583 OF 2010 Govind s/o Yeduba Jarare, Age 48 years, Occ. Service, R/o General Administration Department, Zilla Parishad, Beed, at present at Divisional Commissioner Office, Aurangabad on deputation ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Autangabad, through its Deputy Director (Research), Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3 ..... 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 27th July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, 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 this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the communication dated 14.5.2010, terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit the validity certificate. 3. The petitioner who claims to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, came to be appointed on a post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidates. The claim of the petitioner was referred to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for verification and the said claim is pending. Despite the pendency of the claim, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit the validity certificate. 4. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to 3 allow this petition and quash and set aside the termination order dated 14.5.2010. We accordingly quash and set aside the termination order dated 14.5.2010 and direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 18th August 2010 and further direct the respondent Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within one year of 18th July 2010. During the pendency of the proceedings before the respondent Scrutiny Committee, the respondents shall not take any adverse action against the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the validity certificate. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)