1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2964 OF 2010 Sanjay S/o Uttamrao Shisode } Age : 40 Years, Occ. : Service, } R/o : Indewadi, Post Pokharni (Narsinha) } Tq. and Dist. Parbhani. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through its Secretary, } Agriculture Department } Mantralaya, Mumbai. } 2. The Committee for Scrutiny } and Verification of Caste Claims, } Aurangabad Division, } Aurangabad. } 3. The Divisional Joint Director } of Agriculture, Latur Division, } Latur. } .... RESPONDENTS Miss. Shyamoleena Sarkar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K.Tambe, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08/04/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Miss. Shyamoleena Sarkar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. S.K.Tambe, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent – Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within the stipulated period. The petitioner also prays for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 19/8/2006 issued by respondent no. 3. The petitioner also prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Krishi Sevak with full back wages and continuity in service. 4. The petitioner came to be appointed as Krishi Sevak on a seat which was reserved for Vimukta Jatis. As the petitioner claim to be belonging to “ Rajput Bhamata ” caste, which was recognized as Vimukta Jati, his caste certificate came to be referred to the respondent – Scrutiny Committee for verification. Despite the passage of nearly 5 3 years, the caste claim of the petitioner has not been decided and is pending. In the mean while, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on account of failure of the petitioner to submit the validity certificate within the time provided by the authorities. 5. The petitioner has adequate remedy before the Administrative Tribunal for challenging his termination order. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader has raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the petition in so far as it relates to the order of termination. We, therefore, dismiss the petition in so far as it relates to the relief at prayer clause ‘ C ’ and ‘ D ’ to the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy available to the petitioner in law. In so far as the pending claim before the Committee, we direct the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 20/4/2010 and direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within 3 months of 20/4/2010. 6. Rule is thus made absolute in the above terms. The petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2964.10 ( J ) 4