{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5306 OF 2009 1. Sahebrao Rajaram Shelke R/o Shivajinagar, Sillod, Dist-Aurangabad 2. Rangnath Supdu Chormale R/o Shikshak Colony, Sillod, Dist-Aurangabad 3. Bajirao Fakirro Chormale R/o Shikshak Colony, Sillod Dist-Aurangabad 4. Pundlik Dagdu Chormale R/o New Masoba Nagar, Shikshak Colony, Sillod, Dist-Aurangabad 5. Rangnath Bhimrao Chormale R/o Chatrapati Shivajinagar Shikshak Colony, Sillod Dist-Aurangabad 6. Deepak Bhimrao Chormale R/o Shikshak Colony, Sillod Dist-Aurangabad 7. Atmaram Gajuba Chormale R/o Shikshak Colony, Sillod Dist-Aurangabad 8. Pradeep Bhimrao Chormale R/o Shirsala, Post-Ambhai Tq-Silld, Dist-Aurangabad 9. Kaduba Tulsiram Chormale {2} R/o Shivajinagar, Sillod Dist-Aurangabad 10. Vishwanath Ananda Hake R/o Sillod, Dist-Aurangabad 11. Pandhrinath Fakirrao Chormale R/o Shikshak Colony, Sillod Dist-Aurangabad 12, Vikas Rangrao Jarare R/o Shikshak Colony, Sillod Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad through its Chief Executive Officer 2. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioners Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 10th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, 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. {3} 2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 not to take any adverse action and / or to protect the services of the petitioners till their caste claims are decided by the scrutiny committee. 3. It appears that the petitioners are in service with respondent Zilla Parishad since last 12 to 15 years. They are appointed on the seats reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories. It further appears that as per practice prevailed, their caste claims are not referred to the scrutiny committee immediately after their appointments. It is contended that as the petitioners are appointed prior to 1995, their caste claims are not examined by the committee, for which they cannot be faulted with. The petitioners apprehend that as some of the employees of respondent Zilla Parishad are served with notices to produce validity certificates within a particular period, failing which their services are to be terminated, the petitioners prayed for limited relief that their services be protected and no adverse action be taken against them till their caste claims are decided by the competent scrutiny committee. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that caste claims of petitioners No.1 and 12 are submitted with respondent No.1 on 25.08.2009, however caste claims of rest of the petitioners are yet to be submitted. In that light of the matter, we allow this petition and direct the petitioners to submit their caste claims within four weeks from {4} today, if not already submitted. We also direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claims of the petitioners, within a period of one year, in accordance with law. We further direct respondent No.1 not to take any adverse action against the petitioners during the pendency of their caste claims 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5306-09