Judgment : 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. 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 Committees have not decided the matters pending before it for years together. We have come across various cases wherein the orders have been passed with a totally mechanical approach by non application of mind and on various occasions, the Courts are required to remand the matters to the Committee for consideration afresh. 11. We have come across various cases wherein the orders have been passed with a totally mechanical approach by non application of mind and on various occasions, the Courts are required to remand the matters to the Committee for consideration afresh. 11. The Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was party, vide order dated 22.10.2010, by ad interim orders in W.P. No.5340 of 2010 & other companion matters, had directed that the selection of the petitioners will not be cancelled on the ground that they have not produced the validity certificates. 12. Another Division Bench of this Court, to which also one of us (Joshi, J.) was the party, taking into consideration that the aforesaid condition will lead to a peculiar situation where a candidate would have to wait for years together to obtain orders from the Caste Scrutiny Committee and would lose his right to appointment, had directed the State to file an affidavit indicating the number of cases pending before each of the Committee. The Court had also directed the State to file an affidavit indicating as to whether the State proposes to set up new Committees for deciding the tribe claims. 13. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court dated 6th July 2011, an affidavit has been filed by one Sunil Namdeo Rankhambe, Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, General Administration Department. The total number of Committees and the matters pending have been given in paragraph 2 of the said affidavit, which reads thus: It could, thus, be seen that on 1st August 2011, there are 26900 matters pending before eight Scrutiny Committees. The said officer, in the said affidavit, states thus: "All possible endeavours are intended to be made to achieve clearance of pending cases up to the end of September 2011." 14. We are of the view that the said statement has been made by the said officer under an impression that the members of the Committees are possessed with some divine powers which would permit them to clear 26900 cases in one month. The said task is humanly impossible. The experience shows that the Committees, at times, take decades to decide the matter and in some cases the matter is required to be remanded on one or on number of occasions. The said task is humanly impossible. The experience shows that the Committees, at times, take decades to decide the matter and in some cases the matter is required to be remanded on one or on number of occasions. One of the instances would be the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5340 of 2010, whose claim is pending before the Committee right from 2002. 15. No doubt, that the purpose of the said condition is with a noble aim of ensuring that the reserved seat should be occupied by a candidate belonging to that particular reserved category and no candidate or person, not belonging to reserved category, should usurp the said post. However, at the same time, the Court cannot ignore the fact that it is not in the hands of the candidates to obtain the certificate before they appear for interview or apply for a particular post. If the impugned condition is upheld, an eventuality cannot be ruled out that a candidate will have to wait till he reaches the maximum age to apply for the post and is given the validity certificate after he becomes age bar. In such a situation, a candidate belonging to a particular backward class, would be deprived of availing the benefits, though, in law, he is entitled to. 16. It is a settled principle of law that a party cannot be asked to do an impossible act. Reference, in this respect, can be made to a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Mohammed Gazi Vs. State of M.P. & others, reported in 2000 (3) SCALE 6 . 17. In any case, if any candidate's claim is subsequently invalidated, the law has taken care for the same. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act provides that: "10. State of M.P. & others, reported in 2000 (3) SCALE 6 . 17. In any case, if any candidate's claim is subsequently invalidated, the law has taken care for the same. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act provides that: "10. Benefits secured on the basis of false Caste Certificate to be withdrawn.- (1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category, secures admission in any educational institution against a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes, or secures any appointment in the Government local authority or in any other Company or Corporation, owned or controlled by the Government or in any Government aided institution or Co-operative Society against a post reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred from the concerned educational institution, or as the case may be, discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith." If an ineligible candidate, who is appointed on the post reserved for reserved category, is found to be not belonging to that category and his caste claim is invalidated, his services will be liable to be terminated forthwith and he shall stand discharged from the services. 18. In that view of the matter, we find that the said condition is totally unreasonable and as such, liable to be struck off. Hence the following order:- (i) We allow the petitions and hold that condition no.7, in Government Resolution dated 5th November 2009, is unreasonable and, therefore, is struck off. (ii) Since it is not in dispute, that all the petitioners are duly selected against a post reserved for particular reserved category, we direct the Respondent-employers to forthwith issue provisional appointment orders in favour of the petitioners, which shall be subject to validation of their caste / tribe claims. The same shall be done within a period of one month from today. (iii) The respective Respondent-Scrutiny Committees are directed to decide claim of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six months from today. The same shall be done within a period of one month from today. (iii) The respective Respondent-Scrutiny Committees are directed to decide claim of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six months from today. (iv) It is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners on the ground of non submission of validity certificate till the Respondent-Committees decide claims of the petitioners. (v) It is further directed that in the event any order adverse to the interest of the petitioners is passed by the Respondent-Committees, the same shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of communication by the petitioners. 19. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.