Service – Termination – Validity of – Present appeal filed against order whereby setting aside order of termination of respondent’s services – Held, record shows that pursuant to judgment of High Court, respondent no 2 has already been reinstated in service – Record would also show that respondent no 2 was in service when his services were terminated as his caste certificate was invalidated by Committee – Again he is in service after impugned judgment was rendered and therefore it would be harsh to direct termination of services of respondent no 2 – No post belonging to special backward class category is available with appellant – Therefore interest of justice would be served if Government is directed to create supernumerary post in appellant no 1 institution to accommodate respondent no 2 with liberty to get said caste certificate verified through Caste Scrutiny Committee – Hence, appeal partly allowed and appeal disposed of.
For the foregoing reasons the appeal partly succeeds. The respondent No. 1, i.e., State of Maharashtra, is directed to create a supernumerary post in the appellant No. 1 institution to accommodate the respondent No. 2 as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court. It would be open to the State of Maharashtra and the appellant to get the Caste Certificate dated June 12, 2002, submitted by the respondent No. 2, indicating that he belongs to Special Backward Class, verified from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. If the Caste Scrutiny Committee comes to the conclusion that the Caste Certificate submitted by the respondent No. 2 is valid, he would be continued in service and granted all benefits except back wages from February 6, 2002 to the date of his reinstatement in service pursuant to the impugned judgment. If the claim made by the respondent No. 2 that he belongs to Special Backward Class is not upheld by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the appellant would be entitled to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law.