1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6500 OF 2010 Dnyaneshwar S/o Vithalrao Jinkalwad, Age : 38 Years Occu. : Service, R/o Kaij, Tq. Kaij, District 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 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through its Deputy Director (R), Nashik, Dist. Nashik. .. .. Respondents Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri P. P. Dama, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri R. P. Phatake, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 3. 2 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner who claims to be belonging to "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe, came to be appointed as Gram Sevak by the respondent No. 2. The certificate of the petitioner was not referred by the respondent No. 2 to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. Mean while the petitioner was served with a notice dated 14.05.2010 terminating the services of the petitioner. The termination order came to be stayed by the Chief Executive Officer, for a period of two months. The petitioner, therefore, continues to be in employment. Since the certificate of the petitioner has not been referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification, according to us, it is extremely harsh on the part of respondent No. 1 to terminate the services of the petitioner for his failure to produce the caste validity certificate. 3 3. In that light of the matter, therefore, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 2 is directed to forward the certificate/proposal of the petitioner for verification to the Committee within four weeks from today. We accordingly direct the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 23rd August, 2010 and further direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within one year of 23rd August, 2010. 4. In the mean while, during the pendency of proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner for his failure to submit caste validity certificate. 5. Rule is made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10