1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5063 OF 2010 Asha d/o Kisan Thakar, Age 32 years, Occu.Service, R/o Ashti, Taluka Ashti, District Beed .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr.P.V.Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 14 th June 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 prays for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 14.5.2010 by which the petitioner is called upon to submit the validity certificate within one month from the date of the communication; failing which the services of the petitioner would be terminated. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ to scrutiny committee directing to decide the pending tribe claim of the petitioner. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner who claims to be belonging to Thakar – Scheduled Tribe came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the second respondent from the category of Scheduled Tribe candidates. The tribe claim of the petitioner was referred to the scrutiny committee and is said to be pending with the scrutiny committee from 19.11.2009. The petitioner obviously, according to us, cannot be faulted for the delay which has arisen in the decision of her tribe claim. In that light of the matter, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the communication dated 14.5.2010. We direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent – scrutiny committee on 28th June 2010 and further direct the respondent – scrutiny committee to decide the pending tribe claim of the petitioner within six months of 28th June 2010. The appointment of the petitioner obviously, would be subject to the decision of the scrutiny committee. 3 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/5063.10wp)