{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4270 OF 2009 Altafuddin Aminuddin Khan R/o Silk Mill Colony, Railway Station Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Department of Tribal Development Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Through its Director 3. The Dy. Director Ground Water Survey & Development Agency 4th Floor, Vikas Bhavan, Adalat Road Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.G.P. for respondent State Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 11th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : {2} 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 prays for issuance of a writ to the respondent No.2 Committee to decide the pending tribe claim of the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for directing respondents to provisionally appoint the petitioner pending the decision of his tribe claim. 3. It appears that the petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Tadvi Scheduled Tribe community, came to be selected for the post of Ringman with respondent No.3. Since the petitioner was not armed with the validity certificate, the name of the petitioner has been kept in the select list pending the decision of the respondent Scrutiny Committee in respect of the tribe claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner his claim is pending since January 2009 and has not been decided. Mr.Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that the vigilance cell enquiry has been completed and the petitioner has been heard and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is closed for passing necessary orders. The petitioner apprehends that his name is likely to be deleted from the select list, if there is inordinate delay in the submission of the validity certificate. {3} 4. In the light of that, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition to the limited extent of directing respondent No.2 Committee to pass order in accordance with law in respect of the verification proceedings of the petitioner, within four weeks from today. In respect of other reliefs, i.e. granting of provisional employment to the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant the said relief to the petitioner as we have directed the Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within four weeks from today. 5. In the light of that, therefore, Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp4270-09