JUDGMENT:- In terms of our order dated 27-01-2010, the State Government was expected to come out with some solution to the problem repeatedly noticed by this Court inter alia in the Division Bench decision reported in the case of Yashwant Motiram Suryawanshi & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2006(2) B.C.R. 193 and once again reiterated by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, reported in 2009(4) ALL MR 127 (F.B.). The said order dated 27-01-2010, reads thus: "In these matters, the primary relief claimed by the petitioners is to issue directions against the Caste Scrutiny Committee to expeditiously decide the caste claim of the petitioners. Similar problem was noticed by the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Yashwant Motiram Suryawanshi & others V s. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2006(2) B.C.R. 193. The Court, besides deprecating inaction of the Committee, issued certain directions. The same problem was dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2009(4) ALL MR 127 (F.B.). Full Bench in Para 41 issued certain directions to the State Government so as to ensure that the proposals do not remain pending before the Committee beyond a reasonable time. 2. We hope that the State must have acted upon the directions given by this Court in Yashwant Suryawanshi (supra) as well as in Shilpa Thakur (supra). In a different context, this Bench had an occasion to express the concern about the inaction of the officials resulting into institution of the Writ Petitions, which are wholly unavoidable. In our order dated 25-01- 20 10 passed in Writ Petition No.8348/2009, we had observed that it is unnecessary to underscore that the applicant would have legitimate expectation of early redressal of his grievance and that expeditious decision on the representation or application is a right ingrained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We have also noticed that even if no period of limitation to dispose of the representation/application of such type is prescribed under the Statute, it has to be done expeditiously within a reasonable time. 3. We have also noticed that even if no period of limitation to dispose of the representation/application of such type is prescribed under the Statute, it has to be done expeditiously within a reasonable time. 3. From the documents, which are placed before us, particularly the information furnished by the Counsel appearing for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, we find that the situation has not changed a bit as it obtained in the year 2006. Prima facie in our opinion, the decisions of the Division Bench as well as Full Bench referred to above are in the nature of direction given to the State to comply with certain basic infrastructure and logistical requirement. We call upon the State to disclose on affidavit as to what steps have been taken to effectuate the said directions given by the Division Bench in 2006 as well as Full Bench of this Court in 2009. That affidavit be filed within THREE WEEKS from today. 4. List all these matters on 18-02-2010 under caption "directions". 5. Needless to observe that interim reliefs as prayed for, in the respective matters, if already granted, shall continue till next date of hearing. In cases, where no interim relief has been granted so far, we make it clear that the respondents in the said Petitions shall not precipitate the matter till the next date of hearing". 2. We also reproduce the order passed by us dated 18-02-2010 which reads thus: "Leave to amend to ask for further relief, is granted. Amendment be carried out before next date. 2. Heard Counsel for the parties. Ordinarily, we would have finally disposed of this petition by directing the Authority to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within specified time. However, we intend to examine the scheme of the Act and the Rules and also consider the pendency situation before the different Scrutiny Committees and to indicate methodology to ensure the early disposal of the claims, especially in respect of the incumbents who are required to produce the validity certificate to pursue their academic Courses or in respect of the persons who intend to contest the election against the reserved posts. Counsel for the respondents have produced the charts indicating the pendency position. However, on other aspects, they intend to seek instructions. Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 pray for time till 27-01-2010. We accept this request. 3. Counsel for the respondents have produced the charts indicating the pendency position. However, on other aspects, they intend to seek instructions. Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 pray for time till 27-01-2010. We accept this request. 3. However, since respondent No.4 College has already cancelled the admission of the petitioner on the ground that the validity certificate has not been produced in time, we think it appropriate to stay the operation of the said communication dated 30-11-2009. We are inclined to grant the interim relief, as in our opinion, until the Caste Scrutiny Committee finally decides the caste claim of the petitioner, one way or other, the question of discontinuing the petitioner from the Information Technology Engineering Course for the academic year 2009-2010 does not arise. Accordingly, ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D) as prayed for granted which will operate till further orders. 4. To be listed on 27-01-2010 under caption "direction"." 3. As a matter of fact, in Para. 41 of the Full Bench decision, directions have been issued to the State Government so as to ensure that the proposals regarding caste validity claim do not remain pending before the Committee beyond a reasonable time. 4. The Government Pleader on instructions submits that the Committees constituted by the State Government are doing colossal job of giving of disposal which is unparallel. He stated that in December, 2009, the total pendency of such cases was around 1,39,739 but as of now, by the end of February, 2010 the pendency of cases has been reduced to only 94,120. This disposal has been given by 15 Committees only, dealing with Scheduled Caste claim, constituted throughout the State. Besides, there are 8 Committees dealing with Scheduled Tribes claim throughout the State which are expected to deal with 28,052 pending cases besides the new cases which are filed regularly. We are not impressed by the figures of the number of Committees already in place, considering the volume of pendency. For, no information is available as to what should be the average case load per Committee either at the State level or National level. It is common knowledge that similar Committees are constituted in respective States. What is the infrastructure made available to such Committees in different States and at the National level and average case load to be dealt with by the respective Committees. It is common knowledge that similar Committees are constituted in respective States. What is the infrastructure made available to such Committees in different States and at the National level and average case load to be dealt with by the respective Committees. Indubitably, the number of Committees should be commensurate with the pendency volume so as to efficiently deal with the cases within time bound programme keeping in mind that the decision about the validity of the caste claim has to be given before the admission process is completed or before the person employed suffers termination at the hands of employer for non production of the validity certificate. We may place on record that after having observed the trend of Writ Petitions which are filed before this Bench alone at Aurangabad that in large number of cases, the grievance is made about non issuance of validity certificates within a reasonable time causing undue hardship to the incumbents. We have come across cases where in spite of issuing directions to the Committee by this Court, the matters have not been decided within specified time. The oft repeated excuse given is of over work. In less than six weeks during the present assignment from January, 2010 till date almost 59 cases involving similar issue have been clubbed together and have been listed today. These ca5es were clubbed from time to time only to understand the enormity of the problems while we have already disposed of quite a few petitions claiming similar relief by separate order. But as the issue as aforesaid is a recurring one, we thought it appropriate to initiate Suo Moto action. Hence this order. 5. The outer limit for disposal of such claims has already been spelt out by the Full Bench of our High Court. Therefore, a scientific inquiry will have to be made by the State Government as to how many maximum cases should be allotted to one Committee, keeping in mind the large number of institution of such claims at the commencement of the academic year or during the election period, which is very high in number. The disposal of such claims has to be done within a reasonable time. The disposal of such claims has to be done within a reasonable time. It is unnecessary to underscore that the applicants not only have legitimate expectation of early resolution of their claim but also have a constitutional right of speedy disposal of their claim so as to effectuate their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 6. For the time being, we call upon the State to furnish information regarding the infrastructure and also the pendency with 15 Committees dealing with Scheduled Caste chums and 8 Committees dealing with Scheduled Tribe claims throughout the State. Besides, providing that information, the State shall produce the material regarding institution and disposal and the number of Committees constituted in respective States and at the Center. Let this information be produced on affidavit. 7. Considering the nature of issue that we have to address and which is a recurring one, we think it appropriate to treat this action as Suo Moto Writ Petition. We issue notice to the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, (2) The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, State of Maharashtra, (3) The Secretary, Social Justice Department, State of Maharashtra, (4) The Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, State of Maharashtra, (5) The Secretary, Finance Department, State of Maharashtra, (6) The Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Maharashtra, (7) The Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Union of India, and (8) The Secretary, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Union of India. Notice made returnable on 05-04-2010. 8. We request Mr. P. M. Shah, Senior Counsel to appear as Amicus Curiae in this proceeding to be assisted by Mr. Girish Thigle, Advocate who would act as an Advocate on record for the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.