1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5245 OF 2010 Shivaji s/o Shankarrao Ramod, Age 37 years, Occu.Service at present as Peon, R/o At Post Jaripot, Taluka Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded, at present r/o C/o Panchayat Samiti, Parli, Taluka Parli, District Beed .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, M.S.Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad 3. Chief Executive Officer, Z.P.Beed, Taluka and Dist. Beed ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.A.Nagarsoge, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.3 - AND - WRIT PETITION NO.5292 OF 2010 Aatmaram s/o Nagnath Anmod, Age 44 years, Occu.Service, At present as Junior Assistant, R/o at Post Zarikot, Tq.Dharmabad, District Nanded At Present r/o C/o Zilla Parishad, Beed, Tq. and District Beed ..PETITIONER 2 VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, M.S.Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. Chief Executive Officer, Z.P.Beed, Taluka and Dist. Beed ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.A.Nagarsoge, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 18 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. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ directing respondent No.3 to submit the proposal regarding the verification of the caste status of the petitioners to the respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee and also pray for issuance of a writ directing 3 respondent No.3 not to take any adverse action against the petitioners till the decision of the scrutiny committee and also pray for quashing of the communication issued by the respondent No.3 calling upon the petitioners to produce the validity certificate; failing which the services of the petitioners would be terminated. 3. In the light of the fact that the respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.5245 of 2010 has not submitted the proposal of the petitioners and the fact that the petitioners have been employed by the respondent No.3 since 1993, we are inclined to allow these petitions and direct the respondents to forward the proposals of the petitioners to the Committee. In Writ Petition No.5292 of 2010, the proposal has been forwarded by the respondent No.3 and is said to be pending with the Committee. 4. We, therefore, allow both these petitions and direct the respondent No.3 to forward the proposal of the petitioner, respectively to the respondent – scrutiny committee for verification of the caste status of the petitioners, within four weeks from today. The respondent – scrutiny committee is directed to decide the proposals, if submitted by the respondents, within six months from the date of receipt of the proposals, in accordance with law and communicate the decision thereon to 4 the petitioners. During the pendency of the proposal before the respondent – scrutiny committee, we direct the respondent No.3 not to take any adverse action against the petitioners solely on the ground that the petitioners have not submitted the validity certificates. In respect of prayer clause (D) to the petitions, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the said relief is premature at this stage and, therefore, seeks liberty to pray for the same relief in the event the scrutiny committee decides the proposals against the petitioners. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs with the liberty as prayed for. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/5245-5292.10wp)