1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5087 OF 2010 Santosh s/o Balaji Ture, Age : 39 Years, Occ. Service, R/o Kekat Pangri, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed 3. The Schedule Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through it's Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr P.P. Dama, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.3 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5088 OF 2010 Shankar s/o Gopal Suradkar, Age : 35 Years, Occ. Service, R/o Georai, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed ..PETITIONER 2 VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed 3. The Schedule Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through it's Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr P.P. Dama, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. In the light of the fact that the nature of the relief which is prayed for in both the petitions is similar, we deem it appropriate to decide these two petitions by this common judgment. 3 2. In both the petitions the petitioners secured employment on a post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category as both the petitioners claimed to be belonging to Koli Mahadev and Koli Malhar, respectively. The caste claim of the petitioners is pending adjudication before the Scrutiny Committee. Meanwhile, the petitioners have been served with a communication dated 14.5.2010 informing the petitioners that in the event they do not submit the validity certificate within one month, their services would be terminated. 3. In the light of the fact that the claim of the petitioners has been referred to the Scrutiny Committee and is pending consideration with the Scrutiny Committee and for the delay the petitioners cannot be faulted, we are inclined to allow these petitions. We accordingly allow these petitions and quash and set aside the impugned communications. We further direct the petitioners to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 28.6.2010 and further direct the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioners within six months of 28.6.2010. 4 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp5087.10