1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4980 OF 2010 1. Shivaji s/o Tulshiram Jinkalwad, Age : 38 years, Occu.Service, R/o Dharur, Tq. Dharur, District Beed 2. Manik s/o Angadrao Salunke, Age : 38 years, Occu. Service, R/o Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed 3. Mohammad Naimuddin s/o Khiyamoddin, Age : 44 years, Occu.Service,\ R/o Dharur, Tq. Dharur, District Beed 4. Dhananjay s/o Baburao Nirde, Age : 36 years, Occu. Service, R/o Dharur, Tq. Dharur, District Beed 5. Babasaheb s/o Vaijnath Rudre, Age : 32 years, Occu.Service, R/o Dharur, Tq. Dharur, District Beed 6. Sushila w/o Iranna Potalwar, Age : 42 years, Occu. Service, R/o Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed 7. Purushottam s/o Rameshwar Somwanshi, Age : 45 years, Occu.Service, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, District Beed ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 2 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed 4. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Amravati, Through its Dy. Director (R), Amravati ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1; Mr P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr P.P. Dama, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 10th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners have been employed on seats which were reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The petitioners had been appointed on the said post on the strength of the caste certificate issued to them by the competent authority. Unfortunately the caste claim of the petitioners had not been referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the petitioners were served with notice calling upon them to submit the validity certificates, failing which their services were likely to be terminated. The petitioners, therefore, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pray for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the notice issued to the petitioners as well as for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to refer the caste claim of the petitioners to the competent Scrutiny Committee for verification. 3. In the light of the said facts, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the notices issued to the petitioners and direct the respondents to refer the caste claim of the petitioners to the Scrutiny Committee for verification within a period of three months from today. Learned Counsel for the Scrutiny Committee very fairly states that the Scrutiny Committee would expeditiously decide the caste 4 claim of the petitioners within a period of six months from the date they are referred to the Scrutiny Committee. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp4980.10