{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5339 OF 2009 Shankar Bapurao Chabilwad R/o Tanda (BK), Tq-Paithan Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Maharashtra S.C., S.T., De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, OBC & SBC (Regulation of issuance and verification of caste certificate committee Aurangabad 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 4. The District Health Officer Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.P.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents No3 and 4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 10th September 2009 {2} ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, 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. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.07.2009 issued by District Health Officer and notice dated 10.08.2009 issued by respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to submit his proposal for caste verification. Petitioner has also prayed for directions to respondents No.3 and 4 to forward proposal of the petitioner for caste verification to scrutiny committee with further directions to the scrutiny committee to decide the same within a stipulated period. 3. It appears that the petitioner is serving with respondent No. 3 since 1992. According to the petitioner, the State Government had passed a resolution on 30.07.2004 that on the strength of caste certificates, the candidates appointed against reserved seats prior to 15.06.1995, should be continued in service without any disturbance or reversion, if promoted. It is also contended that on 30.07.2009, the petitioner was served with a notice to submit caste validity certificate within one month, failing which action was to be taken. It is further submitted that on 11.08.2009, the petitioner submitted his detailed proposal to respondent No.4 for forwarding the same to respondent scrutiny committee for verification of his caste. On 10.08.2009, a notice came to be served on the petition informing him that as he has not produced the caste validity certificate within the stipulated time, his {3} services are to be terminated. The said notices are impugned in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not disputed that proposal of the petitioner for caste verification is received by the respondents and the same is forwarded to respondent No.2 scrutiny committee on 18.08.2009. Thus, it is clear that the proposal of the petitioner is pending consideration before the scrutiny committee. In the premise, we are inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct the petitioner to appear before the scrutiny committee on 14.10.2009. We also direct the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a period of one year of 14.10.2009. We further direct respondents No.3 and 4 not to take any adverse action against the petitioner for his failure to produce validity certificate, during the pendency of his claim before the Scrutiny committee. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5339-09