1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6669 OF 2010 Champat S/o Satwaji Dhole, Age : 31 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Wadwani, Tq. Wadwani, District Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through it's Deputy Director (R) Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri P. P. Dama, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri P. S. Patil, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 3. 2 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 27TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for 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 impugns the communication issued by the respondent No. 2 dated 14.05.2010 terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for directing the respondent No. 2 to refer the proposal of the petitioner for verification of his tribe status to the respondent No. 3/Scrutiny Committee. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner who claims to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe category candidate came to be appointed on a post which was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category candidates. During the service tenure of the petitioner, the certificate of the petitioner was never forwarded by the 3 respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3/Scrutiny Committee for verification. Despite this, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted validity certificate. Incidentally, the order dated 14.05.2010 came to be stayed by the respondent No. 2 by order dated 09.05.2010 for a period of two months. The petitioner, therefore, continued to be in employment. 4. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 14.05.2010 and direct the respondent No. 2 to forward the caste claim of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3/Scrutiny Committee within four weeks from today for verification. The petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee on 24th August, 2010 and further direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within one year of 24th August, 2010. 5. In the mean time, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the validity certificate. 4 6. 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