1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5785 OF 2009 Gaikwad Ramkisan Laxman, Age Major, Occu.Presently working as Physical Education Teacher, Prashla Shivana, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad through its Chief Executive Officer, at Aurangabad 2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 3. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Aurangabad .. Respondents Shri K.U.More, Advocate for petitioner Shri U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 1st September 2009 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 2. We have heard Shri More, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri U.B.Bondar, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Malte on behalf of respondent No.3. The principal challenge raised in the present petition is that the petitioner who came to be appointed in the year 2009 apprehends his termination on account of failure to produce the validity certificate from the competent scrutiny committee. According to the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadev Koli – Scheduled Tribe has been referred to the respondent – scrutiny committee some time in July 2009 and the said claim is pending and yet the respondents vide communication dated 10.8.2009 have intimated the petitioner, if the petitioner does not produce the validity certificate within four days, the services of the petitioner would be terminated. 3. In the light of the fact that though several claims are pending before the scrutiny committee, we are inclined to allow this petition. Since the claim of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent – scrutiny committee, we direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent – scrutiny committee on 14th September 2009 and further direct the respondent – scrutiny committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within six months of 14th September 2009. Till the tribe claim of the petitioner is decided by the respondent – scrutiny 3 committee within a period specified by us, no adverse action of terminating the services of the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the validity certificate, be taken against the petitioner. 4. The impugned order to that extent is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the committee for expeditious decision of the tribe claim of the petitioner. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/5785.09wp 4