1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.696 OF 2011 (Magansingh s/o Thakursingh Rabde vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 10, 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.359 OF 2011 Heard Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rode, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 3, and Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. Civil Application No.359/2011 is moved by the petitioner for dispensing with English translation of certain Marathi documents. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that if this Court wants English translation of such Marathi documents at the time of 2 hearing, same will be submitted. In the circumstances, we allow the civil application at this stage. WRIT PETITION NO.696 OF 2011 Heard Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rode, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 3, and Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1997 as an Assistant Teacher in respondent no.5 School from Scheduled Tribe category - “Naikda”. It is contended that the petitioner submitted caste certificate along with necessary documents to the Management of the School immediately after the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. It is submitted that the Management failed to refer caste claim of the petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee within reasonable time and caused delay in sending the 3 same. It is further submitted that the Management forwarded the caste claim of the petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification in the year 2007 and the same is pending before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification. Learned Counsel Shri Mishra further states that the respondent no.5 Head Master has issued the impugned communication dated 21/1/2011 whereby petitioner is directed to submit caste validity certificate within one month from the date of the said communication, failing which the Management shall terminate the service of the petitioner. It is contended that since verification proceedings are pending before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is impossible for the petitioner to comply with the direction issued by the Head Master at this stage. It is, therefore, prayed that direction may be issued to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner according to law within a stipulated period and service of the petitioner may be protected till then. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. In 4 the backdrop of the above referred facts, it appears that though the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1997 from the reserved category, his caste claim for the first time was referred by the Management of the School to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the year 2007, which is pending for verification. By the impugned communication issued by the Head Master of the School, the petitioner was asked to submit caste claim within a stipulated period, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is impossible for the petitioner to comply. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the petition with direction to 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 four months from the date of communication of this order. Till decision is taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the service of the petitioner need not be disturbed. JUDGE JUDGE khj 5