1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6558 OF 2010 Dnyaneshwar S/o Madhavrao Marakwad, Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Sawant Wasti, Wadwani, Tq. Wadwani, Dist. 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 it's Deputy Director (R) Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, 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. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. 2 DATE : 23RD 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. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the communication issued by the respondent No. 2 dated 14.05.2010 terminating the service of the petitioner for failure of the petitioner to produce the validity certificate. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner claims to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe and came to be appointed on a post which was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category candidates. The claim of the petitioner is pending before the respondent/Scrutiny Committee and during the pendency of the said claim, the petitioner had been served with the impugned order dated 14.05.2010 terminating the services of the petitioner. According to us, since the claim is pending before the Scrutiny Committee, the action of the respondent No. 2 is wholly unjustified. 3 4. We accordingly, allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 14.05.2010 and direct the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 13th August, 2010 and further direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within one year of 13.08.2010. 5. In the mean time, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner for his failure to produce the validity certificate. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10