- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7106/2010 Nita d/o Shankarrao Bayod, age 24 yrs., occu.service, r/o c/o Hangarkke Sai Sadan Shikshak Colony, Devirabripura, Dharmabad Tq.Dharmabad Dist.Nanded. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3] Chief Executive Officer, Z.P., Beed. Tq. & Dist.Beed. ...Respondents... ..... Shri S.A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent no.1. Smt.Sarika Deshpande, Advocate h/f Shri R.P. Phatake, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent no.3. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 13.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V. Hardas, J.): - 2 - 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 14.5.2008 terminating the services of the petitioner for failure of the petitioner to submit the validity certificate within the stipulated period. 4] The petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Mannerwarlu – scheduled tribe, came to be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on a post, which was reserved for scheduled tribe. The petitioner states that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner has been referred to the scrutiny committee for verification and the verification proceedings are pending. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner has been served with the impugned communication dated 14.5.2010 terminating the services of the petitioner. The aforesaid communication has been stayed by the respondent no.3 for a period of two months. The petitioner claims that on account of the stay granted by the respondent no.3, the petitioner is in service. 5] Since the proceedings are pending before the scrutiny committee, according to us, the order terminating the services of the petitioner is unjustified. We - 3 - accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the termination order dated 14.5.2010 and direct that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings in respect of non-submission of the validity certificate. We direct the petitioner to appear before the scrutiny committee on 21.9.2010 and direct the committee to decide the proceedings within a period of one year from 21.9.2010. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. (N.D. Deshpande, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c1381028