1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6206 OF 2010 Narsingh Aashnna Yengantwar, Age 43 years, Occu.Service, R/o PS-17, Nikhil Vihar, Shriram Nagar, Beed, Taluka and Dist.Beed .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed, Through its Chief Executive Officer 3. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary ..RESPONDENTS Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.P.P.Dama, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 14th July 2010 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 2. The petitioner takes exception to a communication dated 14.5.2010 informing the petitioner that his services were terminated on account of failure of the petitioner to submit a caste validity certificate. The aforesaid order dated 14.5.2010 came to be stayed subsequently by the same authority, who had issued it. The stay was operative for two months. 3. The petitioner states that the petitioner, who belongs to Mannerwarlu – Scheduled Tribe came to be appointed as an Assistant Junior Engineer on 23.3.1995. The respondents have not forwarded the certificate of the petitioner for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. Mr.Dama, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 – Zilla Parishad states on instructions that the proposal seeking verification of the tribe claim of the petitioner would be forwarded to the scrutiny committee within four weeks from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to Court. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and accordingly, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 14.5.2010 and direct the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 23rd August 2010 and further direct the scrutiny committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within one year of 23rd August 2010. In the meantime, respondent No.2 – Zilla Parishad, Beed shall not take any steps for terminating the 3 services of the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner has not forwarded the validity certificate. Further action, if any may be initiated after the decision of the scrutiny committee. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/6206.10wp)