1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6204 OF 2010 1. Sandip s/o Digambar Darveshwar, Age 33 years, Occu.Service, R/o Ayodhyanagar, Morewadi, Ambajogai, Taluka Ambajogai, District Aurangabad 2. Vijay Kashinath Rapatwar, Age 37 years, Occu.Service, R/o Z.P.Colony, Ambajogai, Tq.Ambajogai, District Beed 3. Satyandu Shivaji Rapatwar, Age 39 years, Occu.Service, R/o Sadarbazar, Ambajogai, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist.Beed 4. Smt.Sandhya d/o Sambha Yennawar, Age 45 years, Occu.Service, R/o Sharayu Apartment, Yogeshwarinagar, Ring Road, Ambajogai, Dist.Beed 5. Avinash Ashok Sangewar, Age 38 years, Occu.Service, R/o Conductor Colony, Parali-Vaijnath, Taluka Parali-Vaijnath, District Beed 6. Smt.Bharati d/o Balajirao Rapatwar, Age 38 years, Occu.Service, R/o Omsai Niwas, Mathuranagar, Jalalpur, Parali-Vaijnath, Taluka Parali-Vaijnath, Dist.Beed 7. Gopinath Vithalrao Somalwar, Age 42 years, Occu.Service, R/o Hadelwadi, Post Ujani, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist.Beed 2 8. Anil Vithalrao Pendalwar, Age 32 years, Occu.Service, R/o Omsai Niwas, Mathuranagar, Jalalpur, Parali-Vaijnath, Taluka Parali-Vaijnath, Dist.Beed 9. Smt.Sangita Ganesh Pallewar, Age 36 years, Occu.Service, R/o Shakuntal Niwas, Dattanagar, Beed, District Beed 10. Shripad Ramkrishna Atnurkar, Age 36 years, Occu.Service, R/o Kumkar Niwas, Ganeshnagar, Near Old S.P.Office, Beed, Taluka and District Beed .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati Division, Amravati 4. Zilla Parishad, Beed, through its Chief Executive Officer .. RESPONDENTS Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.P.S.Patil, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 14th July 2010 3 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. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner impugn the communications dated 14.5.2010 and 29.5.2010 issued by the respondent – Zilla Parishad informing the petitioners to submit the validity certificate within a particular time; failing which their services were likely to be terminated. Undisputedly, the petitioners came to be appointed on seats reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidates. The employment was given to the petitioners on the strength of their caste certificates and their certificates have been referred to the scrutiny committee for verification. Since the proceedings for verification of their caste certificates are pending before the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioners are unable to submit the validity certificates. Obviously, for the delay which has arisen in the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioners cannot be faulted. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and accordingly, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned communications and direct the petitioners to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 5th August 2010 and further direct the Committee to decide their caste 4 claims within one year of 5th August 2010. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee, the respondent – Zilla Parishad shall not take any steps for terminating the services of the petitioners on the sole ground that the petitioners have not submitted their validity certificates. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/6204.10wp)