1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6570 OF 2010 Anna S/o Rambhau Chabilwad, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Georai, Tq. Georai, District Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through it's Deputy Director (R) Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1 Shri P. P. Dama, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri P. S. Patil, Standing counsel for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. 2 DATE : 23RD JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner impugns the communication dated 14.05.2010 by which the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondent No. 2 for failure of the petitioner to produce the validity certificate. 3. The petitioner who claims to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe came to be appointed on a post which was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category candidates. The claim of the petitioner was not forwarded to the respondent/Scrutiny Committee and as a result of which the petitioner could not produce the validity certificate. Despite this services of the petitioner came to be terminated for his failure to submit the validity certificate. According to us, the aforesaid action is wholly unjustified. 4. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and direct the respondent/Zilla Parishad to forward the claim of 3 the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee within four weeks from today and direct the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 30th August, 2010 and further direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within one year of 30.08.2010. 5. In the mean time, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner for his failure to produce the validity certificate. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10