B.R. Gavai, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. The petitioners have impugned condition No.7 of the Government Resolution dated 5th November, 2009.

3. All the petitioners, who are claiming to be belonging to different Scheduled Tribes, are seeking employment under the various employers which are either the State or the instrumentalities of the State. The petitioners are possessing requisite certificates certifying that they belong to the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners claims for considering validity of their caste claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, are pending before the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committees at different places.

4. The petitioners are basically aggrieved by condition No.7 of the said Government Resolution which prevents an appointment or promotion to a candidate belonging to backward class unless he possesses the validity certificate.

5. Shri Sandeep Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners and other learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submit that the said condition is totally untenable. It is submitted that the period, within which the caste validity certificate is to be issued, is not in the hands of the petitioners. It is submitted that it is exclusively within the domain of the Scrutiny Committee as to when the caste validity certificate is to be issued. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned condition in the said Government Resolution is totally unreasonable thereby depriving the rights of the persons like petitioners who are seeking employment on the basis of their Constitutional rights of reservation.

6. The learned Counsel also submit that the impugned condition is also in breach of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. The learned Counsel further submit that the guideline is also contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94.

7. The learned Counsel further rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2008 (2) Bom.C.R. 712.

8. The learned A.G.P. vehemently opposes the petitions. It is submitted that the said condition has been imposed with an objective that no person, who is belonging to the reserved category should get the benefit of reservation. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

9. The Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the provisions in various Municipal laws, so also the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, Village Panchayats Act, which provided that if a candidate from reserved category did not produce the caste validity certificate within a period of four months, he shall stand disqualified. The Court was considering the question, as to whether the said period of four months has to be held as directory or mandatory. The Division Bench, after observing that, as to within how much period the caste validity certificate has to be submitted by a candidate was not within the domain of the petitioners, held the provision to be directory.

10. We cannot refuse to take judicial notice of the fact that whenever either of us has sat on the Division Benches assigned to hear writ petitions, on every day there have been at least a dozen cases pertaining to the orders / inactions on the part of the Scrutiny Committees constituted under the said Act. On number of occasions, directions have to be issued to the said Committees to decide the matters within a stipulated period. We have come across the cases wherein the Scrutiny Committ