JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:---The petitioner came to be appointed in Medical and Health Service, Class II of the State of Maharashtra as per the order dated 8-2-79 Annexure 'F' page 17 onwards. It is an admitted position that he was appointed on the claim of being a Scheduled Tribe member. 2. By order dated 25-4-86 Annexure 'A-1' page 12-A, his services came to be terminated on the ground that caste claim is found to be false. This assertion was made on the basis of a scrutiny as indicated in that order on the next page 12-B. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was unaware of any scrutiny. If ever it was held and no order having been communicated, the petitioner is totally ignorant about when such scrutiny was done, by whom, where and on what basis. As mentioned above, no order of the scrutiny committee or the authority who did the exercise has been communicated to the petitioner. 4. At the time when the petition was filed, stay was granted and petitioner has continued to be in service. Having entered service for the year 1979 after almost 7 years, he is told that on scrutiny, his caste claim cannot be accepted. We have already observed in Writ Petition No. 1206 of 1984 that if at all the Government has to scrutinise the caste claim after making the appointment, as also in cases where appointments are subject to such scrutiny, there being no time frame prescribed for the purpose it leads to many complicated situation. Over and above that the plight of the concerned candidate and his family members can well be imagined. By the time as in the instant case, if the caste claim is decided, obviously the petitioner would become ineligible for any other public appointment and certainly would have crossed the age limit prescribed for the purpose. 5. We have therefore directed in the said earlier petition that in keeping with the usual practice of the Government to appoint the candidates on a probation for a period of 2 years, during that period the State authorities should scrutinise the claim and arrive at a definite decision in that regard. 6. 5. We have therefore directed in the said earlier petition that in keeping with the usual practice of the Government to appoint the candidates on a probation for a period of 2 years, during that period the State authorities should scrutinise the claim and arrive at a definite decision in that regard. 6. In the instant case we are not saying that the State is barred from considering the caste claim as made by the petitioner and it can certainly do so by following the directions as given hereunder. 7. The petitioner shall inform the authorities within three weeks from today his full and correct address where the communication for the purpose of the said scrutiny exercise can be sent. The address thus given shall be valid for all service purposes during the said scrutiny exercise. 8. When scrutiny shall be done after giving due opportunity to the petitioner of supporting his claim for the cast and taking into consideration all the relevant orders, circulars and judgments in this regard the committee shall form its own opinion and give a reasoned order copy of which will also be furnished to the petitioner. 9. In case the decision goes against the petitioner, the follow up action on the basis of the decision of the scrutiny committee shall not be taken for a period of two weeks and that period of two weeks shall start from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the petitioner of the scrutiny committee. Impugned order of the termination of the services is quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly. Rule made absolute.