1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5996 OF 2009 Deelip s/o Govind Sonwane, Age 30 years, Occu.Service, R/o Satara Parisar, Beed Bypass, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist.Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad 3. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Paithan, Taluka Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad 4. The Scheduled Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad through its Deputy Registrar (R), Aurangabad .. Respondents Shri Pratap V.Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Shri U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Shri P.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 9th 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. We have heard Shri Jadhavar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dighe, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Shri U.B.Bondar, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Shri Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 18.8.2009 issued by the respondents informing the petitioner that on his failure to submit the validity certificate, the services of the petitioner were likely to be terminated. 4. The petitioner came to be appointed on a seat which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate as the petitioner claims to be belonging to Malhar Koli – Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner was appointed somewhere in 1999 and thereafter the claim of the petitioner was not forwarded to the scrutiny committee for 3 verification. However, it appears that on 7.9.2009, the claim of the petitioner has been submitted before the scrutiny committee for verification. In the light of that, according to us, the action of the respondents in informing the petitioner to submit the validity certificate within a particular time; failing which the services of the petitioner were likely to be terminated is a hasty action. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the order insofar as it relates to the threat of termination of the services of the petitioner and direct the petitioner to appear before the scrutiny committee on 24th September 2009 and further direct the committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within six months of 24th September 2009. We further direct that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the validity certificate. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/5996.09wp 4