{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10608 OF 2010 Vinod s/o Yeshwantrao Bhuse, age: 23 years, Occ: Education, R/o Loni (Bk.), Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 SC, VJNT, OBC and SBC Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Latur Division at Latur-2. 3 The Education Officer/Member Secretary, Selection Committee for Education, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. Respondents Mr.D.Y.Nandedkar, advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 2. Mr.M.S.Sonawane, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 22 nd November, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.): 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard {2} finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents No.1 and 2 learned Counsel Shri Sonawane waives notice for Respondent No.3. 2 The present petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2- Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner regarding he belonging to Wani caste, which is recognised as Other Backward Class. The petitioner further seeks a direction to Respondent No.3 to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak. 3 According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been selected as Shikshan Sevak and a selection order is issued to the petitioner on 29.06.2010, which, however, is subject to the decision of the Respondent No.2- Committee. The petitioner apprehends that though the claim is pending before the Respondent No.2- Committee, on account of non deciding the same, the petitioner may loose an opportunity of being appointed on the said post. 4 The petitioner cannot be penalised on account of inaction on the part of Respondent No.2-Committee. The Respondent No.2, on an earlier occasion, was directed to decide caste claim of the petitioner. 5 Be that as it may. We feel that it is in the interest of justice that the Respondent No.2 – Committee be directed to decide {3} the claim of the petitioner within a stipulated period and till then the Respondent No.3 shall not cancel selection of the petitioner on account of non submission of caste validity certificate. 6 Rule is, therefore, disposed of in following terms: (i) The Respondent No.2 – Committee is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from today. (ii) The petitioner to appear before the said Committee on 6th December, 2010, as such, the requirement of formal notice stands waived. (iii)Till the decision of Respondent No.2 – Committee, Respondent No.3 shall not cancel selection of the petitioner and in the event, the claim of the petitioner is declared to be valid, shall issue the appointment order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of validity certificate. (iv)In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1060810