(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8873 OF 2010 Ramrao s/o. Shankarrao Solanke, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Sirshi (Bk.), Taluka : Sonpeth, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Collector, Parbhani. 2. The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Taluka : Sonpeth, District : Parbhani. 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District : Parbhani. 3A. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 4. Ashruba s/o. Digaji Randive, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Sirshi (Bk.), Taluka : Sonpeth, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Standing Counsel, for respondent no. 3A. ........................ WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8877 OF 2010 Sugriv s/o. Dnyanoba Kharat, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Sarpanch, R/o. Dudhgaon, Taluka : Sonpeth, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Collector, Parbhani. 2. The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Taluka : Sonpeth, District : Parbhani. 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District : Parbhani. (3) 4. Mahadu s/o. Karbhari Kadam, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Dudhgaon, Taluka : Sonpeth, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. ........................ WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8898 OF 2010 Sugriv s/o. Dnyanoba Kharat, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Sarpanch, R/o. Dudhgaon, Taluka : Sonpeth, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Collector, Parbhani. 2. The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Taluka : Sonpeth, District : Parbhani. (4) 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District : Parbhani. 4. Chaturabai w/o. Karbhari Kadam, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Dudhgaon, Taluka : Sonpeth, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Leave to amend the cause title. 2. By way of present petitions, the petitioners have raised a grievance that though the respondent no.4, in the respective petitions, have been elected from the reserved category, they have done nothing more than submitting papers (5) for determining the validity of their caste (tribe) claims. 3. Mr. S.S. Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this court, in Writ Petition No. 5691 of 2007 (Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and companion petitions, dated 20th December 2007, submits that a person belonging to a reserved category cannot be permitted to continue in the post for innumerable time without getting the claim validated by the Scrutiny Committee. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that in the present case, for the last more than two years, the claim of the respondents has not been decided and it will have to be presumed that the respondents have neglected in getting their claim validated. He, therefore, submits that it is necessary to declare that the respondents are disqualified to hold the post on which they are elected. 5. From the averments made in the petition, it cannot be said that the respondents are deliberately making an attempt to protract the proceedings before the Committee. If the Committee does not decide the claim expeditiously, the respondents cannot be faulted with. As a matter of fact, the judgment of the Division Bench, cited by the learned Counsel (6) appearing for the petitioners, goes to hold that the provisions, which require the caste (tribe) validity certificate to be issued within a prescribed period, cannot be held to be mandatory but are directory in nature. 6. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petitions. 7. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8873etc