1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6374 OF 2009 Kaveri d/o Uttamrao Nikam, Age : Major, Occ.Assistant Teacher r/o Raigad nagar,Mhada coloney, CIDCO, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Verification Committee, Aurangabad through its Secretary, office near Baba Petrol Pump Mhada Complex, Aurangabad 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 4. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondents no.3 & 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 25th September 2009 2 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 prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 10.8.2009, which is annexed to the petition as Exhibit J disclosing the intention of the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner in the event the petitioner fails to submit the validity certificate. In the light of the limited relief which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 3. The petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 25.9.1992 on a post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe as the petitioner claims to be belonging to "Thakur", which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. It appears that thereafter the claim of the petitioner came to be referred to the respondent - Scrutiny Committee some time in 2004 and since then the said claim is pending. Meanwhile the petitioner is in receipt of the impugned communication dated 10.8.2009 by 3 which the petitioner is informed to submit the validity certificate, failing which the services of the petitioner were likely to be terminated. The petitioner apprehending the termination of his services has filed the present petition. 4. The claim of the petitioner is undisputedly pending with the respondent Scrutiny Committee and the petitioner cannot be attributed the fault of delaying the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee. In the light of that, therefore, according to us the action of the respondents in threatening to terminate the services of the petitioner for his failure to submit his validity certificate is unwarranted. In the light of that, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order. In order to ensure that the proceedings before the respondent Scrutiny Committee are expeditiously decided, we direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 12.10.2009 and further direct the Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within six months of 12.10.2009. It is needless to state that the future action to be taken against the petitioner would be dependent upon the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp6374.09 5