1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4584 OF 2010 1. Tarachand s/o Dattatraya Kaware, Age 35 years, Occ. Service, R/o Meergaon, Tq. Georai, District Beed. 2. Vasant s/o Goba Nikam, Age 35 years, Occ. Service, R/o Jategaon Tanda, Tq. Georai, District Beed. 3. Namdeo s/o Ganaji Amale, Age 40 years, Occ. Service, R/o Sindkhed, Tq. Georai, District Beed. 4. Eknath s/o Bapurao Palumpalle, Age 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o Madalmohi, Tq. Georai, District Beed. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, through its 2 Deputy Director (Research), Aurangabad 4. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through its Deputy Director (Research), Nasik. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Shri P.P. Dama, Advocate holding for Shri P.S. Patil for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 15th July, 2010 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. At the outset, Mr. Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioners states on instructions that the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 may be permitted to withdraw this petition in so far as reliefs claimed by these petitioners is concerned. We accept the aforesaid statement and, therefore, permit the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 to withdraw this petition as far as they are concerned. This writ petition stands 3 dismissed in so far as the reliefs prayed for by petitioner Nos.1 and 3 is concerned. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners impugn the communication dated 14.5.2010, by which the services of the petitioners came to be terminated because of failure on the part of the petitioners to submit the validity certificates. The order of termination came to be stayed by the same authority for a period of two months and as a result of the stay, the petitioners are still in employment. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioners came to be appointed by respondent No.2 on a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates as the petitioners claim to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The appointments were given on the strength of the caste certificates which the petitioners had produced. Eventually, the certificates submitted by the petitioners came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification, and according to the petitioners, the proceedings before the Committee are pending and have not yet been finalised. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and accordingly, allow this petition and quash and 4 set aside the impugned communication dated 14.5.2010 and further direct the petitioner Nos.2 and 4 to appear before the respective respondents/ Scrutiny Committees on 9/8/2010 and further direct the respondents/ Scrutiny Committees to decide the pending claim of the petitioners within a period of one year from 9/8/2010. Pending the decision of the verification proceedings, we direct respondent No.2 not to initiate any adverse action against the petitioners solely based on the ground that the petitioners have failed to produce the validity certificates. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)