WP/7495/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7495 OF 2010 Swapnil Dilip Koli Age : 22 years, Occ. Student, R/o Ghodgaon, Tq.Chopda, District Jalgaon. ..Petitioner VERSUS 1.The State Of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2.The Commissioner, Maharashtra State Council of Examinations, Pune 3.The Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation Jalgaon 4.The Administrative Officer, Jalgaon City Corporation, Primary Education Board, Jalgaon 5.The Committee for Scrutiny of Tribe Claims, Nandurbar ..Respondents ... Shri A.B.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri K.G.Patil, AGP for respondent No.1, Shri M.S.Deshpande, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Respondent No.4 : Served and Shri R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.5. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & A.V.POTDAR, JJ. Dated : February 10, 2011 WP/7495/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per HARDAS, J.) :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondents 3 and 4 to issue appointment order to the petitioner in the light of the selection of the petitioner to the post of Shikshan Sevak. The selection of the petitioner is conditional upon the petitioner producing the validity certificate. According to us, the relief as prayed vide prayer clause (C) cannot be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ directing respondent No.5 Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner. It appears that the claim of the petitioner for issuance of the validity certificate is pending before respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee since 24.7.2007. It appears that despite the passage of more than three years, no progress has been made so far. The petitioner is certainly prejudiced on account of the long pendency of his caste claim as the petitioner stands to loose the employment for which he has been duly selected. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition. 4. We accordingly, allow this petition and direct respondent No.5 WP/7495/2010 3 Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within two months. We further direct the petitioner to appear before respondent No.5 Scrutiny Committee on 14.2.2011 and direct the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within two months of 14.2.2011. 5. Rule is made, therefore, partly absolute on above terms. No order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) ... akl