1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4033 OF 2010 (Pramod Vitthalrao Parate vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 9, 2011 Heard Shri Wathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Khubalkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, and Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5. The following facts are not in dispute : The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in Treasury Office, Buldana from the reserved category (“Halba” - Scheduled Tribe). However, since petitioner failed to submit caste validity 2 certificate, respondent no.4 terminated his service. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5 Caste Scrutiny Committee, states that though caste claim of the petitioner was referred for verification by the employer of the petitioner (respondent no.4), however, for want of requisite documents, the caste claim of the petitioner was referred back to the respondent no.4 with a request to submit relevant documents in support of the caste claim of the petitioner. Be that as it may, since service of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondent no.4, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal against the order of termination in view of the decision of this Court in Sunil Vithalrao Kumbhre and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 101). The Caste Scrutiny Committee is entitled to consider the grievance of the petitioner in respect of his caste claim. So far as delay in filing proceedings before Tribunal is concerned, it may be considered 3 sympathetically in view of pendency of the petition in this Court. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj