JUDGMENT ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.:- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Petitioner has been in service since 1.2.1997 as Junior Clerk with respondent no. 2-University based upon caste certificate "Halba - Scheduled Tribe". In the year 2001, respondent no. 2 asked the petitioner to submit the documents for verification of her caste. In the year 2002 the petitioner submitted the documents for verification of her caste. Respondent no. 2 forwarded the same to respondent no. 1 caste scrutiny committee for verification. Enquiry is pending till date. Respondent no. 2 knowing fully well the pendency of enquiry proceedings, again issued notice dated 2.8.2013 insisting for a certificate and threat was also given to the petitioner to terminate her services. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition along with others. 3. This Court by order dated 08.2.2013 (in WP. No. 404/13 & connected petitions filed by present petitioner and others) quashed and set aside the impugned notices and directed the caste scrutiny committee to expedite the caste validity proceedings and also directed the parties to cooperate. Though steps were taken by the parties, the respondent-scrutiny committee did not adjudicate the claim of the petitioner even within six months from the date of the order. Respondent no. 2 has, however, again issued a notice dated 2.8.2013 and insisted to produce a caste certificate by 8th August 2013, failing which threat to terminate petitioner's service was again given. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for grant of protection and all similar reliefs as granted in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra (2012 AIR SCW 4472) : [2012 ALL SCR 2393] basically on the foundation of State of Maharashtra v. Milind 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 : [2001 (1) ALL MR 573 (S.C.)] and the judgment passed by this Court (Coram: Anoop V. Mohta & Z.A. Hag, JJ.) in the case of Ku. Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha, in W.P. No. 5530/12 & ors., dated 10.7.2013 : [ 2010(6) ALLMR 697 ], on same line. 5. Submission is also made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent no. 2 knowing fully the judgments of supreme court, as well as of this Court, and the fact that caste validity proceeding is pending, issued notices threatening to terminate petitioner's service. 6. We are inclined to observe that respondent no. 5. Submission is also made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent no. 2 knowing fully the judgments of supreme court, as well as of this Court, and the fact that caste validity proceeding is pending, issued notices threatening to terminate petitioner's service. 6. We are inclined to observe that respondent no. 2 ought to have taken note of the fact that respondent no. 1 scrutiny committee could not conclude the proceedings initiated by them in spite of the order passed by this Court and the same is pending. Such type of threat to terminate the service is nothing but a sort of harassment, which is apparent on the face of the record. 7. It is rightly observed in order dated 8.2.2013 while quashing the earlier notices, "we find that it is beyond the control of the petitioners to produce the caste validity certificate to the employer after verification from the respective caste scrutiny committees." Issuance of second notice again for the same, in our view, was uncalled for. 8. The employers are aware of the judgments whereby on the ground of equality/parity, though based upon facts and circumstances of the case, the supreme court as well as this High court has been granting protection basically to the employees who have been appointed prior to 28.11.2000. By the above judgments if the services of the employees like petitioner have been protected on regular basis, issuance of such notices, in our view, is nothing but overlooking the judgments of the courts and this action is nothing but to create confusion and in our view a constant threat to deny their crystalized right. We are inclined to observe that valid caste certificate is necessary for completing the formality of service record. Therefore, validity proceedings so initiated needs to be completed in accordance with law. The action to issue such threat notices, in view of the above circumstances and undisputed position on record, needs to be deprecated to avoid such litigations and confusion in the mind of similarly placed employees in the department. 9. We are inclined to observe that petitioner is entitled for protection of service in view of the above referred judgments on similar terms and conditions. Respondent no. 2 just cannot overlook the judgments so referred above. There is no provision to issue such threat notices to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees. 9. We are inclined to observe that petitioner is entitled for protection of service in view of the above referred judgments on similar terms and conditions. Respondent no. 2 just cannot overlook the judgments so referred above. There is no provision to issue such threat notices to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees. Therefore, we are inclined to quash and set aside the notice dated 2.8.2013 to bring caste certificate by 8th August, 2013. However, it is made clear that any such further notice/notices in future without considering the judgments so referred above, the Court would pass appropriate orders against respondent no.2. 10. It is made clear that respondent no. 1 to adjudicate the caste claim of the petitioner as early as possible and the time for the same is extended for a further period of four months. It is necessary to observe that it is high time that respondent no. 1 while deciding and adjudicating caste claim must take note of the reasons for delaying such matters so that in a given case the Court would pass appropriate orders against such persons who are deliberately delaying the proceedings. The cooperation of the parties is a must. Blame cannot be put upon respondent no. 1. Therefore, it is also necessary to assess/understand the reason for such delay, though court directed to dispose of the same within a particular period. Due deliberation by discussion, situation can be resolved if materials are placed on record by the scrutiny committee and or by the authorities by passing appropriate orders and or mentioning the reasons for the delay. 11. This Court has already directed respondent no. 1 to adjudicate the caste claim of petitioner and, therefore, there is no question of taking any step to terminate the services of petitioner till the adjudication of petitioner's caste claim and that shall continue for a further period of four weeks, if the decision goes against the petitioner. 12. Liberty is granted to respondent no. 2 to take appropriate action subject to the decision of caste scrutiny committee, apart from the observations so made in the above paragraphs. The respondent is at liberty to take action in case fraud or misrepresentation is proved against the petitioner. 13. With the above observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to both the parties by keeping all the points open. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. The respondent is at liberty to take action in case fraud or misrepresentation is proved against the petitioner. 13. With the above observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to both the parties by keeping all the points open. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. Ordered accordingly.