1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6375 OF 2010 1. Vimal D/o Ramrao Umrikar, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Services, R/o Shirsala, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. 2. Ganesh S/o Mahipati Anneboiwad, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Services, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. 3. Hanumant S/o Irranna Muppidwad, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Services, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. 4. Sanjay S/o Nagorao Sudewad, Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Services, R/o Patoda, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. 5. Chandrashekhar S/o Govindrao Vasurkar, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Services, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. 6. Limbaji S/o Rajanna Padgi, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Services, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. 2 7. Dattatraya S/o Vithal Bontewad, Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Services, R/o Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. 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 it's Deputy Director (R) Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri Dama, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri P. S. Patil, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of 3 learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners, who claimed belonging to Scheduled Tribe came to be appointed as assistant teachers by the respondent No. 2/Zilla Parishad on the posts which were reserved for the S. T. category candidates. Undisputely, the claims of the petitioners are pending consideration with the respondent No. 3/Scrutiny Committee and during the pendency of the said claims, the services of the petitioners came to be terminated. Subsequently the order of termination came to be stayed by the respondent No. 2 and the petitioners are continued in employment. 3. Since the claims of the petitioners are pending consideration with the respondent No. 3/Scrutiny Committee, according to us, it is extremely harsh that the services of the petitioners are terminated on account of failure of the petitioners to submit the validity certificates. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the orders of termination and direct the petitioners to appear before the respondent No. 3/Scrutiny Committee on 30th August, 2010 and further direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the pending caste claims of the petitioners within one year of 30th August, 2010. 4 4. In the mean time, no adverse action be taken against the petitioners solely on the ground that the petitioners have not submitted validity certificate. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10