1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6368 OF 2010 Dashrat S/o Narayan Turatwad, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Service At present as Assistant Teacher, R/o At Post Gugrala, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded, At Present C/o Assistant Zilla Parishad School Pangari, Centre Asardoha, Tq. Dharur, Dist. 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., Tq. & Dist. Beed. .. .. Respondents Shri S. A. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1. Shri R. P. Phatake, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Shri N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. 2 CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner who claims to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe came to be appointed on a post which was reserved for S. T. category candidates. The service of the petitioner came to be terminated by order dated 14.05.2010 on account of failure of the petitioner to submit the validity certificate. The aforesaid order of termination issued by the respondent No. 3 came to be stayed for a period of two months. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner had submitted the original caste certificate, the same had not been referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted for non submission of the validity certificate. 3. Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Zilla Parishad states that the respondent No. 3 would forward the 3 proposal of the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for verification within four weeks from today. In that light of the matter, therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2010 and we direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee on 30th August, 2010 and further direct the respondent/Scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within one year of 30th August, 2010. 4. Since the caste claim of the petitioner has been directed to be referred to the respondent/Scrutiny Committee, we direct the respondent No. 3 not to take any adverse action against the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the validity certificate. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10