1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3931 OF 2010 Devidas Bhaidas Koli } Age : 26 Years, Occ. Nil. } R/o : Dodhwad, Tq. Amalner, } District : Jalgaon. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through its Secretary, } Tribal Development Department, } Mantralaya, Mumbai. } 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and } Verification of Tribe claims } Nandurbar Division, } Nandurbar. } 3. The Superintendent of Police } Dhule, Dist. Dhule. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.G.Talhar,, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. P.S.Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. R.P. Phatke, Standing Counsel for respondent no. 2. 2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29/04/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 1. At the out set, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not press the relief in terms of prayer clause ‘ D ’, as such the petition in terms of prayer clause ‘ D ’ stands dismissed as not pressed. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for direction against respondent no. 2 – Committee to decide the validity proceedings pending with it within stipulated period, so also seeks direction against respondent no. 3 to issue appointment order in favour of petitioner as Police Constable. 4. Undisputedly, the validity proceedings are pending with respondent no. 2 – Committee, as such we direct the petitioner to appear before respondent no. 2 – Committee on 10/5/2010. We further direct respondent no. 2 – Committee to decide the proceedings within period of four months from 10/5/2010. 3 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 3931.10 ( J )