- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8680/2010 Shivling s/o Gangadhar Bhourwad, age 40 yrs., occu.service, r/o Katti Tanda, Tq. Majalgaon Dist.Beed. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Secretaryto Rural Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. Dist.Beed. 3] The Schedule Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad. Through its Deputy Director (R), Auranabad. Dist.Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri S.S. Dambe, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.3. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 24.09.2010 - 2 - 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] The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 14.5.2010 thereby terminating his services on the ground of non production of the caste validity certificate. 3] The petitioner is appointed as Assistant Teacher by the respondent no.2 against a post reserved for scheduled tribe. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Koli Mahadeo – scheduled tribe. It appears that there was certain delay on the part of the respondent no.2 in forwarding the claim of the petitioner to the respondent no.3. It is also not in dispute that the claim of the petitioner is pending before the respondent no.3. However, since the petitioner has not submitted the validity certificate, his services are terminated by the respondent no.2. The same are subsequently stayed. 4] The petitioner can not be penalized on account of delay on the part of the respondent nos.2 & 3. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of with following directions: [1] The respondent no.3 is directed to decide the claim of the - 3 - 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 termination order of the petitioner is set aside. [3] The respondent no.3 is directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner till the decision by the respondent no.3 – 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.3, 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/c2491041