1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 611 OF 2010 Sangita Laxmanrao Malve .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 612 OF 2010 Deepak Bhaidas Koli .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 618 OF 2010 Gokul Laxmansingh Thakur .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 619 OF 2010 Dipak Sukhdeo Bhanwar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 620 OF 2010 Sonaji Niluba Bhotkar .. Petitioner Versus 2 The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 621 OF 2010 Nandusingh Umaraosingh Pardeshi .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. with WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 2010 Prakash Dhondiba Sonwane .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. with WRIT PETITION NO. 623 OF 2010 Gauri Ranasingh Thakur .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 624 OF 2010 Santosh Mukund Sonwane .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 625 OF 2010 3 Balu Dashrath Dhatbale .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 626 OF 2010 Dattu Namdeo Gawali .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 627 OF 2010 Pradip Bhaidas Koli .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 628 OF 2010 Khan Irfan Osman Khan .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 630 OF 2010 Raju Vishwanath Gurupawar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. And 4 WRIT PETITION NO. 631 OF 2010 Shaikh Mustaq Shaikh Sikandar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. --- Mr. S.N. Jadhav/ N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. P.P. More/S.K. Kadam/D.R. Korde/Smt. Vaishali A. Shinde, AGPs for the respondent No.1 and 3. Mr. U.S. Malte/ Mrs. Sarika Deshpande, Advocate instructed by Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate / Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2010. COURT'S ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2] As a common question of fact and law arises for consideration in this group of petitions, we are disposing of the petitions by this common order. 5 3] All the petitioners are in Government service and are working as Police Constables since last more than 8 to 10 years. The petitioners came to be appointed against the vacancies reserved for one of the backward classes. The appointment of the petitioners being against vacancies for reserved category, the said appointments are subject to the verification of the caste/tribe claim of the petitioners. It so happened that despite lapse of 8 to 10 years, the caste claim of the petitioners have not been verified and the respondent No.3 as well did not insist for the same. 4] Notices came to be issued to the present petitioners in the month of August, 2009, directing the petitioners to submit the caste/tribe validity certificates within a period of 7 days, failing which the petitioners were threatened with termination of service. Apprehending coercive action for non-submitting the caste validity certificate, the writ petitions came to be filed. 5] The petitioners have contended that on one hand their caste/tribe claim which is pending with the scrutiny committee is not being expeditiously adjudicated and on the other hand, the respondent No.3 has threatened coercive action of termination. 6 As no action was taken pursuant to the notices issued in August, 2009, this court passed interim order and protected the petitioners from the threatened action of termination pending consideration of the writ petitions. The respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit in reply, which is duly sworned by the Assistant Commissioner of Police Aurangabad, wherein, it is stated that having regard to the fact that the present petitioners are in service for last about 8/10 years, and as their caste/tribe claim has not been invalidated, the third respondent would not proceed to terminate the service of the petitioners on the ground of non-production of caste validity certificate till the decision of the caste scrutiny committee. 6] Having regard to the stand taken by the respondent No.3 in their affidavit in reply filed today, we proceed to issue necessary directions to the concerned respondents : I] The respondent No.2 caste scrutiny committee shall verify the caste/tribe claim of each of the petitioners, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to them II] The learned counsel for the petitioners having assured that all the petitioners would appear before the committee on 4th 7 March, 2010, we dispense with the issuance of formal notices to them. III] Till the decision of the caste/tribe claim of the petitioners pending with the respondent No.2, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall not proceed to take coercive action against the petitioners solely on the ground that the petitioners have failed to submit the caste validity certificates. Iv] After the caste/tribe claim of the petitioners are adjudicated by the respondent No.2, it shall be open for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to take appropriate action in accordance with law. V] We expect the scrutiny committee to verify and decide the caste/tribe claim of the petitioners within a period of six months from today. Rule made absolute in above terms. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] Grt/- 8