{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6146 OF 2009 Bhausaheb Rama Kunte R/o H.No.38, Raigad Building 12, Vaibhav, Jatwada Road, Harsul, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Trough its Dy.Director (R) Aurangabad 3. Commissioner of Police Aurangabad, Office of Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarter, Through Deputy Commissioner of Police Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] {2} DATE: 15th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, 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. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directions to respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee to decide the Tribe claim of the petitioner expeditiously. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notices dated 01.08.2009 and 31.08.2009. 3. It appears that the petitioner came to be appointed as a police Sepoy on 14.02.1987 with respondent No.3. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner came to be promoted as police Naik and Police Constable respectively on 31.12.1995 and 05.09.1996 from reserved category of scheduled tribe. It further appears that on 10.08.2009, respondent No.3 referred the tribe claim of the petitioner for verification to respondent No.2 Committee. However, on 31.08.2009 a notice came to be served on the petitioner informing him to produce caste validity certificate within 7 days else, his services were to be terminated. The said notice is impugned in the present petition. 4. It is not disputed that after the petitioner joined {3} services and came to be promoted from reserved category, his tribe claim is referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and the same is still pending consideration. In the light of the fact that the tribe claim of the petitioner is pending consideration before the Scrutiny Committee, we do not find any fault with the petitioner in not producing the validity certificate as directed by respondent No. 3. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated 01.08.2009 and 31.08.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. We direct the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 07.10.2009. We further direct the respondent Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 6 months of 07.10.2009. We also direct respondent No.3 not to take any adverse action against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce tribe validity certificate, during the pendency of his tribe claim before the Scrutiny Committee. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6146-09