1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6561 OF 2010 1. Gopal S/o Ramji Dhamshedwar Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, District Beed. 2. Mahesh S/o Babanrao Jadhav, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, District Beed. 3. Vaijnath S/o Atmaram Pathakrao, Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, District Beed. 4. Balasaheb S/o Manik Gunjegaonkar, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, District Beed. 5. Lilabai D/o Shahajirao Patange, Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, District Beed. .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary 2 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. 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. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners impugn the communication issued by the respondent No. 2 dated 14.05.2010 terminating the services of 3 the petitioners for failure of the petitioners to produce the validity certificates. 3. Undisputedly, petitioners' claim to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe and came to be appointed on the posts which were reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category candidates. The claims of the petitioners are pending before the respondent/Scrutiny Committee and during the pendency of the said claims, the petitioners had been served with the impugned order dated 14.05.2010 terminating the services of the petitioners. According to us, since the claims are pending before the Scrutiny Committee, the action of the respondent No. 2 is wholly unjustified. 4. We accordingly, allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 14.05.2010 and direct the petitioners to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 13th August, 2010 and further direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the claims of the petitioners within one year of 13.08.2010. 5. In the mean time, no adverse action be taken against the petitioners for their failure to produce the validity certificates. 4 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