{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5511 OF 2009 Dhananjay Shankarrao Nagamwad R/o Dishanagari, Beed By Pass Road Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 3. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Aurangbad 4. The Scheduled Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad through its Dy.Director RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.P.V.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.GP for respondent No.1. Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 24th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned {2} counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10.08.2009 issued by respondent No.3 informing the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were likely to be terminated on failure of the petitioner to produce the caste validity certificate on or before 14th August 2009. 3. In the light of limited relief, which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to hear this petition finally at this stage. 4. We have heard Mr.Jadhavar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondent No.1, Mr.Bondar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 and Mr.Phatke, learned counsel for respondent No.4, who accept notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 5. The petitioner, it appears, had obtained employment in the year 1993 as an assistant teacher on a post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, as the petitioner claimed to be belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. According to the respondents, the petitioner had not taken effective steps for getting his tribe status decided from respondent No.4 Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has referred his tribe status to respondent No.4 Scrutiny Committee for verification on 14.08.2009. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has referred his tribe status to respondent Scrutiny Committee {3} for verification, albeit late, we are inclined to allow this petition. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before Scrutiny Committee on 1st September 2009 and the Committee is directed to decide the tribe status of the petitioner within 6 months of 01.09.2009, in accordance with law. Respondents are directed not to take any adverse action against the petitioner solely on the ground of his failure to produce the validity certificate till the claim is finally decided by the scrutiny committee. Further action, if any, is dependent upon the order of the respondent Scrutiny Committee. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Copy of this order, duly authenticated be provided to the petitioner to act upon. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5511-09