(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10688 OF 2010 Vijay Fulchand Pardeshi, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o. CDPO, ICDS, Ghansawangi, Taluka : Ghansawangi, District : Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Revenue Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Plot No.10, Near St. Lawrence School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19th November 2010, passed by the respondent no.2, thereby reverting the petitioner from the present posting in Maharashtra Development Services, Group-B, to the Agriculture Officer, Group-C, in Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Agriculture Officer, Class-III, in District Technical Services, under Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Pardeshi Bhamta", which is notified as Vimukta Jati - "A" category. The petitioner came to be promoted on 29th (3) November 2004in Maharashtra Development Services, Group "B", against the post reserved for Vimukta Jati - "A" category. The said promotion was subject to validity of caste claim of the petitioner by the respondent no.3. The petitioner has submitted all the necessary documents for considering the validity of his caste claim and the said matter is pending before respondent no. 3. It is the submission of the petitioner, that the date for considering the claim of the petitioner is fixed today. Inspite of this position, according to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 has reverted the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the caste validity certificate. 4. We find that the petitioner cannot be penalized for inaction on the part of respondent no.3 in not deciding the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner had done, which he could have done at his end, by submitting necessary papers. It is also not in dispute, that the matter is pending before respondent no.3 / Committee. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 19th November 2010, at Exhibit "H", issued by respondent no.2, is quashed and set aside. (4) (ii) The respondent no.3 is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law, and on its own merits, within a period of two months from today. (iii) It is made clear, that till the decision by the respondent no.3 / Committee, regarding validity of petitioner's caste claim, the petitioner shall not be reverted from his present post. (iv) It is further directed that, in the event, the order passed by the respondent no.3 / Committee is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to, for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of communication by the petitioner from the respondent no.3 / Committee. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10688