1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6526 OF 2010 1. Subhash s/o Malhari Konkewad, Age 38 years, Occu.Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq.Parli Vaijnath, District Beed 2. Balaji s/o Govindrao Maldode, Age 35 years, Occu.Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, District Beed 3. Balaji s/o Tukaram Boinwad, Age 36 years, Occu.Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, District Beed 4. Hanmallu s/o Girmaji Muttepod, Age 37 years, Occu.Service, R/o Ghatnandur, Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed 5. Haribhau s/o Ramrao Sirsewad, Age 37 years, Occu.Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath District Beed .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed 3. The Schedule Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS 2 Mr.S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for petitioners Mr.S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.P.P.Dama, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.R.P.Phatke Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 22nd 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. The petitioners, who claim to be candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, came to be appointed to various posts by respondent No.2. The proposal of the petitioners came to be forwarded to the respondent – scrutiny committee for verification of the tribe status of the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Committee, the petitioners were served with a communication dated 14.5.2010, terminating the services of the petitioners. The second respondent, by order dated 29.5.2010 has granted stay to the said termination order for two months. According to us, since the proposal of the petitioners was pending with respondent – scrutiny committee, the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners is wholly unjustified. 3 3. We, accordingly, allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the petitioners to appear before the Committee on 13th August 2010 and further direct the Committee to decide the claim of the petitioners within one year of 13th August 2010. In the meantime, no adverse action be taken against the petitioners solely on the ground that the petitioners have failed to submit their validity certificate. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/6526.10wp)