1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6477 OF 2010 Tejpal Subhash Thakur, Age : 30 Years Occu. : Service, R/o Rajapur, Tq. Georai, District Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through its Deputy Director (R), Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar. .. .. Respondents Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri P. P. Dama, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri R. P. Phatake, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 3. 2 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner who claims to be belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak by the respondent No. 2/Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed on a post which was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category candidates. The petitioner contends that the certificate of the petitioner came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee and the said proceedings are pending. 3. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner has been served with an order terminating the services of the petitioner dated 14.05.2010. The aforesaid order of termination has been stayed for a period of two months by the Chief Executive Officer. 3 4. Since the claim of the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondent/Scrutiny Committee, according to us, the petitioner cannot be faulted for non production of the validity certificate. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 14.05.2010 and direct the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 18th August, 2010 and further direct the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a period of one year of 18th August, 2010. 6. In the mean while, during the pendency of proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner for his failure to submit caste validity certificate. 7. Rule is made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10