1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5589 OF 2011 (Sanjeev Sharadrao Parhate 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 : NOVEMBER 18, 2011 Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, Shri Nitin Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, and Shri Abhay Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3. The petition is directed against the decision of termination dated 31/10/2011 taken by the respondent no.3 whereby service of the petitioner came to be terminated for non-submission of caste validity certificate. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the 2 petitioner, states that the petitioner is not officially served with the order of termination. It is contended that the caste claim of the petitioner has been referred by the Department to the respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification and the same is pending. It is prayed that direction may be given to the respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a stipulated period and parties may be directed to maintain status quo as on today. Shri Abhay Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3, states that service of the petitioner is already terminated. Shri Nitin Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee, states that caste claim of the petitioner shall be decided within a period of six months from today. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it appears that caste claim of the petitioner is pending for verification and decision before the respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee. In the circumstances, we direct the respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the 3 petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. So far as aspect of termination of service of the petitioner is concerned, it is a disputed question of fact. Be that as it may, since this Court in similar matters directed parties to maintain status quo, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in the meantime. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj