1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 437 of 2011 Ku Rakhi v. The State of Maharashtra and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr P.C. Marpakwar, Adv for petitioner Mr Nahush Khubalkar, AGP for respdts no. 1 and 2 Mr G.G. Mishra, Adv for respdts 3,4 Mr S.M. Puranik, Adv for respdt no. 5 Coram: D.D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 1st March 2011 1. Heard Mr P.C. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr Nahush Khubalkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr G.G. Mishra, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks oral permission to implead the Caste Scrutiny Committee as a party- respondent. Since the Caste Scrutiny Committee is a necessary party, we grant the request. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to carry out amendment in the cause title forthwith. 3. Issue notice to the newly added party-respondent. Mr S.M. Puranik, learned counsel waives notice for Caste 2 Scrutiny Committee. 4. In the instant petition, the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of action of termination likely to be taken by respondents no. 3 and 4 for want of submission of Validity Certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in the year 2001 from the reserved category (Scheduled Tribe). The petitioner, thereafter, submitted Caste Certificate along with the relevant documents to respondents no. 3 and 4 in the years 2005, 2006 and 2009. It is submitted that the management of the School has forwarded caste claim of the petitioner to the caste scrutiny committee in the year 2005, which is pending for verification before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that direction be given to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a stipulated period and further prayed that further direction be given to the management not to disturb the services of the petitioner till then. 5. Mr G.G. Mishra, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4 (management) does not dispute that the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the year 2005. 6. In view of the above-referred undisputed facts, it is 3 evident that the caste claim of the petitioner is pending before the Caste Scrutiny Committee since long. Therefore, we direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner, if not decided earlier, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Till then, the services of the petitioner need not be disturbed. However, it is made clear that the same would be subject to the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 7. With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE joshi