1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4306 OF 2010 Manojkumar s/o Bhikanrao Thakur, Age : 30 years, Occ. Govt. Service, R/oDighi, Post Baderkhe, tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar Through its Member Secretary 2. Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Through its Chief Executive Officer ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.S. Phatale, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr B.R. Kedar, Advocate holding for Mr M.S. Sonawane for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 14th July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] 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. We have heard Mr Phatale, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr P.S. Patil, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr Kedar, learned Counsel holding for Mr M.S. Sonawane on behalf of respondent no.2. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner takes exception to a communication dated 27.4.2010 issued by respondent no.2 informing the petitioner to submit the validity certificate, failing which the services of the petitioner would be terminated. The petitioner also prays for directing respondent no.1 Committee to decide his claim which is pending with respondent no.1 Committee. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner, who claims to be belonging to "Thakur" - Scheduled Tribe, came to be appointed with respondent no.2 as a Junior Clerk on a seat which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidates. On 31.3.2004 the certificate of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. Thereafter the petitioner came to be appointed as a Junior Auditor again against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidates with respondent no.2 Zilla Parishad. The claim of the petitioner is pending consideration with the Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioner he cannot be faulted for the delay which has arisen in the decision of 3 the Committee. 5. Since the claim of the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondent - Scrutiny Committee, we are inclined to allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 27.4.2010. We further direct the petitioner to appear before respondent no.1 Committee on 28.7.2010 and further direct the Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within nine months of 28.7.2010. We also direct respondent no.2 not to take any adverse action against the petitioner during the pendency of his claim before the Scrutiny Committee 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 order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp4306.10