-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Writ Petition No. 6270 of 2009 Pratima Prakash Thakur @ Shashikala Vithal Gaikwad & Others. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Kuldip Pawar i/b Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent – State. Coram: S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : July 22, 2009. P. C. : 1. This petition has been filed by five Petitioners seeking directions to the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste validation claims of the Petitioners as early as possible. It appears that they are all working in the posts reserved for scheduled tribe with the Respondent No.3. Petition has been verified by the Petitioner No.1 only. He has verified the petition for himself only and affixed his signature. Other Petitioners have not verified the petition and also have not signed the same, though there are signatures of rest of the Petitioners on the vakaltnama of the Advocate for the Petitioner. The petition signed and verified by the Petitioner No.1 -: 2 :- therefore cannot be treated as a petition filed by the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. There is no power of attorney or authority given to the Petitioner No.1 by Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 to file the petition on their behalf. Ultimately, the statements in the petition are not verified and made by the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, and therefore they are not entitled to claim any relief as claimed in the petition. Therefore, insofar as the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, the petition to stand disposed of as not being properly filed by the said Petitioners. However, they would be at liberty to file a fresh petition by signing and verifying the same. The present petition by the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 accordingly stands disposed of. 2. Insofar as the Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the petition is properly filed and therefore the learned AGP has no objection for giving direction to the Respondent No. 2 to dispose of the caste validation claim of the Petitioner No. 1 within a stipulated time. However, he submitted that the applications of the Petitioners have been forwarded to the Respondent No. 2 on 18th July 2009, and immediately after filing the applications, the Petitioners have approached to this Court for getting the said reliefs. It is well settled -: 3 :- law that the Scrutiny Committee has to give opportunity to the Petitioner and also get a report from the Vigilance Cell, and if any adverse report is given by the Vigilance Cell, explanation and opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the Petitioner. Therefore, we direct that the application of the Petitioner No. 1 for validity certificate, after complying with the procedure as set out in respect of the same, shall be decided within a period of two years from the receipt of a copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)