1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PEITTION NO.6127 OF 2009 Veerbhadra s/o Shankar Bendke, Age 30 years, Occu.Service, R/o Gurukrupa, Post Colony, Juna Pedgaon road, Parbhani, Taluka and Dist.Parbhani .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai 3. The Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax, Nanded 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Parbhani 5. The Scheduled Castes, Vimukta Jatis, OBCs and Special Bcs Welfare Caste Certificate Verification Committee, (Through its Member Secretary and Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad) .. Respondents Shri S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 Shri B.L.Sagar, Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.5 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 15th September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jadhav,learned Assistant Govt.Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and Shri B.L.Sagar, Killarikar, who accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.5. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directing the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner and also prays for directing the respondents not to take any adverse action against the petitioner pending the determination of his caste claim. In the light of the limited relief which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. The petitioner who claims to be belonging to Mala Jangam, Scheduled Tribe, came to be appointed as Sales Tax Inspector by order dated 5.2.2009. The petitioner was thereafter served with a communication dated 20.7.2009, which is impugned in the present petition, calling upon the petitioner to submit the validity 3 certificate within ten days; failing which the petitioner was likely to be visited with an adverse action which included the termination of his services. The petitioner submitted representation to the authorities pointing out that the caste claim of the petitioner had been forwarded to the respondent – scrutiny committee on 30.7.2009 and, therefore, it would practically not possible for the petitioner to produce the validity certificate within the time so stipulated. 5. Be that as it may, since the claim of the petitioner is pending consideration with the scrutiny committee, we are inclined to allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to an apprehending action of termination of the services of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order insofar as it informs the petitioner that adverse action against him is likely to be taken for his failure to produce the validity certificate is hereby quashed and set aside. In order to ensure that the caste claim of the petitioner is expeditiously decided, we direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent – scrutiny committee on 7.10.2009 and further direct the Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within four months of 7.10.2009. During the pendency of the caste claim before the 4 Committee, the respondents 1 to 4 are directed not to take any adverse action against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the validity certificate. Further orders, in accordance with law would be subject to the decision of the scrutiny committee. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/6127.09wp 5