{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5727 OF 2009 Suwarnamala d/o Suryakant Putthewad Age-24 years, Occ-Art (Drawing) Teacher R/o Jategaon, Tq-Phulambri Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Education Department (Primary) Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 3. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 4. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Phulambri Tq-Phulambri, Dist-Aurangabad 5. The Head Master, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Jategaon, Tq-Phulambri Dist-Aurangabad 6. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director (R) Aurangabad RESPONDENTS {2} ....... Mr.S.S.Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent No.1. Mrs.Kalpalata Patil Bharswadkar, Advocate for R-2 to 5 Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.6 ....... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5729 OF 2009 Jaishree d/o Janardhan Koturwar Age-37 years, Occ-Assistant Teacher Zilla Parishad Primary School, Adul Tq-Paithan, Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Education Department (Primary) Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 3. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 4. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Paithan Tq-Paithan, Dist-Aurangabad 5. The Head Master, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Adul, Tq-Paithan Dist-Aurangabad 6. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad {3} Through its Deputy Director (R) Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.S.Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1. Mrs.Kalpalata Patil Bharswadkar, Advocate for R-2 to 5 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.6 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 12th October 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Since both these petitions raise a common question, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The petitioners in both these petitions, are aggrieved by the communication of the respondents dated 10.08.2009 by which the petitioners were called upon to produce the validity certificates within a stipulated period unmindful of the fact that the caste claims of the petitioners had been recently referred to the scrutiny committee for verification. {4} 4. Be that as it may. Since the caste claims of the petitioners have been referred to the scrutiny committee for verification and the petitioners cannot be faulted for the delay, we are inclined to allow these petitions. Accordingly, we allow these petitions and quash and set aside the impugned orders in so far as it relates to treat of taking adverse action of terminating service of the petitioners if the validity certificates are not produced within a stipulated period. We further direct the petitioners to appear before the scrutiny committee on 09.11.2009 and direct the scrutiny committee to decide the caste claims of the petitioners within 6 months of 09.11.2009. We further direct that during the pendency of the proceedings before the scrutiny committee, no adverse action be taken against the petitioners solely on the ground of failure of the petitioners to produce the validity certificates. 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/wp5727-09