1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5788 OF 2009 Subhash s/o Bapurao Shinde, Age 44 years, Occu.Service, R/o Saliwada, Paithan, Tq.Paithan, District Aurangabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 4. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS Ms.Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Shri U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Shri U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.4 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 Ms.Mahajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Jadhav for respondent No.1, Shri Bondar, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Shri Malte, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. It appears that the petitioner has been working with the respondents for a considerable time and though the petitioner had been appointed on reserved post of Scheduled Tribe candidate, the petitioner had not submitted his caste certificate for verification and getting his claim validated by the scrutiny committee. It appears that the respondent – Zilla Parishad also did not initiate any steps for getting the claim of the petitioner validated. It appears that the respondent – Zilla Parishad has issued the impugned communication to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit the validity certificate within the particular period; failing which the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated. The petitioner apprehending discontinuance of his services has rushed to this Court. 3. A statement is made before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would submit necessary certificate before the respondent – scrutiny committee within four weeks from today. We accept the said statement as an undertaking to Court. In the light of the aforesaid statement, we are, therefore, inclined to allow this petition. 3 4. We, accordingly, allow this petition and direct the petitioner to submit his claim before the scrutiny committee within four weeks from today. In order to ensure that the claim of the petitioner is adjudicated expeditiously, we direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent – scrutiny committee on 29th September 2009 and further direct the committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within six months of 29th September 2009, in accordance with law. The impugned order to that extent deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. We, therefore, direct the respondents not to initiate any action of terminating the services of the petitioner during the pendency of his claim before the respondent-scrutiny committee for his failure to produce the validity certificate from the committee. Further action, if any, may be initiated by the respondents after the decision of the scrutiny committee. 6. 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/5788.09wp 4