1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5037 OF 2010 Nandkishor S/o Ambadas Akole, Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Service as Assistant Accounts Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Patoda, R/o Patoda, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mumbai - 32. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed, Dist. Beed. 3. Chief Accounts and Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. 4. Divisional (Regional) Social Welfare Officer, Social Welfare Office, Aurangabad, Division (Region), Aurangabad. 5. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Aurangabad. 6. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalna, Dist. Jalna. .. Respondents 2 Shri G. K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1 and 6. Shri S. S. Dambe, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 and 3. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P. V. HARDAS, J ) : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 02. The petitioner herein has been served with the impugned notice dated 14.05.2010 intimating to the petitioner that on his failure to submit the validity certificate, the services of the petitioner would be terminated. According to petitioner, his claim is pending consideration with the Scrutiny Committee and the petitioner cannot be faulted for the delay which has arisen in the decision of his caste claim. 03. We have heard Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf 3 of respondent No. 1. So also Shri Dambe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3 and Shri Malte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. In the light of pendency of the caste claim before the Scrutiny Committee, we are inclined to allow this petition. We, therefore, allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 14.05.2010 and further direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 3/Scrutiny Committee on 05th July, 2010 and also direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in case lateron six months from 05th July, 2010. It is needless to state that, further action which the respondent No. 2 may take, would be subject to the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. 04. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10