JUDGMENT VASANTI A. NAIK, J..:- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard final1y by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to refer the caste claim of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur for a decision on the same. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 14th January, 2011 issued by the respondent No.3. 3. It appears that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order dated 14th January, 2011 on the ground that the caste certificate tendered by the petitioner for verification of his caste claim was a fake document and was not issued by the competent authority. The respondent No.3 had issued the impugned order also because the petitioner was not cooperating with the respondent No.3 and was not furnishing the necessary documents including Forms-E and F for sending the same to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste claim. 4. The respondent No.4, the Collector, Nagpur had filed an affidavit in reply and it was stated in the same that the caste certificate of the petitioner is not a fake document and there was only some mistake in the serial number of the same. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondent No.4 that the caste certificate of the petitioner is a genuine document. 5. Since the petitioner was not submitting Forms-E and F to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, this Court had directed the petitioner to submit Forms-E and F to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by today and it is informed to this Court by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the said forms have been submitted by the petitioner to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the caste claim of the petitioner along with the relevant documents could be sent to the respondent No.1 Committee for verification of his caste claim. 6. Since the caste certificate of the petitioner is not found to be a fake and is a genuine document and since the petitioner has submitted Forms-E and F to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, it would be necessary to quash the impugned order dated 14th January, 2011 and direct the respondent No.1 Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner as early as possible. Though the prayer of the petitioner is strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, since both the reasons for issuance of the impugned order of termination dated 14th January, 2011 are not in existence today and one of the reasons for terminating the services of the petitioner is found to be factually incorrect, the impugned order dated 14th January, 2011 is liable to be set aside and it would be necessary to direct the respondent No.1 Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner. 7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 14th January, 2011 is quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner was at fault in not submitting Forms-E and F to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a reasonable time, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in the Court today, has informed the Court that on reinstatement, the petitioner would not claim the salary from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to permit the petitioner to join the services within a period of one week. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 states that the caste claim of the petitioner would be sent to the respondent No.1 Committee for verification within a period of two weeks. After the respondent No.1 Committee receives the same, the Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner as early as possible and positively within a period of four months from the date of the appearance of the petitioner before the Committee. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Committee on 20th June, 2012 so that issuance of the notice to the petitioner could be dispensed with. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the original certificates placed on record to the petitioner at the earliest. Ordered accordingly.