1 unreproted IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2769 OF 2010. Parmeshwar Arjun Avaghad, Age 19 years, Occ.Education, R/o Khande Pargaon, Tq. and Dist.Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Technical Education for State of Maharashtra, 3, Mahapalika Road, Mumbai. 3. The Govt.College of Engineer and Research, At Post Avsari Khurd, Tq. Ambegaon, Dist.Pune, through its Principal. 4. The Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, Maharashtra State, Division Aurangabad, through its Director, Having its Office at Plot No.10, Near St.Lawrence High School, Cidco, Town Center, Aurangabad.... Respondents. ... 2 Mr.S.K.Shinde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.P.S.Patil, advocate for the Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 29.03.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to decide the caste claim of the petitioner and also prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 18.3.2010 issued by the Respondent No.3 cancelling the admission of the petitioner. 3. We have heard Mr.Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Asstt. 3 Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 4. Undisputedly, the proceedings for verification of the caste claim of the petitioner is pending consideration with the Respondent NO.4. The petitioner can not be faulted for the delay which has arisen in the decision of his caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee, the admission of the petitioner has been cancelled. We, therefore, direct the Scrutiny Committee to expeditiously decide the caste claim of the petitioner and accordingly direct the petitioner to appear before the Respondent NO.4 Scrutiny Committee on 7.4.2010 and direct the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within six (6) months of 7.4.2010. 5. In the meanwhile, we quash and set aside the communication dated 18.3.2010, cancelling the admission of the petitioner and restore his admission as before. It is needless 4 to state that the admission of the petitioner would be subject to the result of the caste claim to be decided by the Scrutiny Committee. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp276910