1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6447 OF 2010 Balraj s/o Kisanrao Chunnamwar, Age 38 years, Occu.Service, R/o At Post Sagroli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, M.S.Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. Chief Executive Officer, Z.P.Beed, Tq. and Dist.Beed ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.A.Nagarsoge, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 20th July 2010 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. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 14.5.2010 issued by the third respondent terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of failure of the petitioner to submit the validity certificate. 3. The petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Mannerwarlu – Scheduled Tribe, came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak on a post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. It appears that the certificate of the petitioner came to be forwarded to the respondent – Scrutiny Committee for verification. On account of severe workload on the scrutiny committee, the scrutiny committee could not decide the tribe claim of the petitioner and as a result the proceedings remained pending. During the pendency of the said proceedings before the committee, the impugned order dated 14.5.2010 came to be passed terminating the services of the petitioner. The impugned order, however, has been stayed by the authorities for a period of two months effective from 19.5.2010. 4. Since the petitioner is in employment, we are inclined to allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay which has arisen in the decision of the tribe claim by the 3 respondent – committee. We, however, direct the petitioner to appear before the committee on 23rd August 2010 and further direct the committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within one year of 23rd August 2010, in accordance with law. Till then, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the validity certificate. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/6447.10wp)