RAVINDRA v. GHUGE &R. M. JOSHI, JJDATE
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:12811-DB 905-CA-6093-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6093 OF 2024 IN RAST/13948/2024 WITH RAST/13948/2024The State Of Maharashtra Through Its PrincipalSecretary And AnrVERSUSAnjali Vithalrao Jukte And Ors...Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, AGP for ApplicantsMr. M. S. Deshmukh i/by Mr. U. B. Gite, Advocate forRespondents...CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &R. M. JOSHI, JJDATE:JUNE 28, 2024PER COURT : 1.By consent of the parties, the delay of 20days is condoned and the Civil Application is disposedoff.2.By consent of the parties, the ReviewApplication is taken up for hearing.3.The learned AGP Shri. Nerlikar has vehementlycanvassed the grounds (five) in the Review Petition,which read as under:I) That, the Judgment and order iserroneous, against law, against principleof natural justice and facts on the record.II) That, in view of the Judgment deliveredPage 1 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtby the Food Corporation of India it issettled law that the person who is seekingappointment under the Reserve Category heshould be having Validity Certificate whilejoining the services and it is admittedposition on record that present RespondentNo. 1 Original Petitioner No. 1 is not atall having the Validity Certificate as ontoday and his claim is pending before theCaste Scrutiny Committee for Validity.III) That, while delivering the impugnedJudgment though Hon'ble Court observed inimpugned order more particularly in para 5the stand of the Government that suchcandidates whose claims are pending areseeking the appointment in GovernmentDepartment without having the ValidityCertificate on the premise that theirclaims are pending for Validity and underorders of this Hon'ble Court suchpetitioners admitted, though probationary,and if after some days if that personsuffers the invalidity at the hands ofScrutiny Committee then this Provisionalappointment obviously will be protected infurther litigation on the premise ofnatural justice till the challenge to theinvalidity of those candidates and in suchcases this would be a modus operandi tosuch candidates those who does not havevalidity on the reserve post.IV) That, though this point has beenobserved but not appreciated by thisHon'ble Court in view of the Judgment ofFCI of the Hon'ble Apex Court. This iserror apparent on the face of record whichrequired to be considered at the hands ofPage 2 of 44
Legal Reasoning
905-CA-6093-2024.odtAppellants would surely depict the Court'ssupport in favour of the sacrilegious. Itwould also compromise the integrity of theacademic community. We are of the view thatin the name of doing complete justice it isnot possible for this Court to support thevitiated actions of the Appellants throughwhich they gained admission to the MBBScourse.Explaining the matter further, this Courtheld that: “99....Besides the consideration recorded byus in the foregoing paragraphs, we mayconfess, that we felt persuaded for takingthe view that we have, for a very importantreason -- national character. There is asaying--when wealth is lost, nothing islost; when health is lost, something islost; but when character is lost,everything is lost. ... The issue in hand has an infinitely vastdimension. If we were to keep in mindimmediate social or societal gains, theperspective of consideration would bedifferent. The submission canvassed needsto be considered in the proper perspective.We shall venture to drive home the point byan illustration. We may well not have wonour freedom, if freedom fighters had notlanguished in jails ... and if valuablelives had not been sacrificed. Depending onthe situation, even civil liberty or lifeitself, may be too trivial a sacrifice,when national interest is involved. It alldepends on the desired goal. The Preambleof the Indian Constitution rests on thePage 7 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtfoundation of governance on the touchstoneof justice. The basic fundamental right ofequality before law and equal protection ofthe laws is extended to citizens and non-citizens alike through Article 14 of theConstitution on the fountainhead offairness. The actions of the Appellants arefounded on unacceptable behaviour, and incomplete breach of the Rule of Law. Theiractions constitute acts of deceit invadinginto a righteous social order. Nationalcharacter, in our considered view, cannotbe sacrificed for benefits - individual orsocietal. If we desire to build a nation onthe touchstone of ethics and character andif our determined goal is to build a nationwhere only the Rule of Law prevails, thenwe cannot accept the claim of theAppellants for the suggested societalgains. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective,we have no difficulty whatsoever inconcluding in favour of the Rule of Law.Such being the position, it is not possiblefor us to extend to the Appellants anybenefit Under Article 142 of theConstitution.”We are in respectful agreement with theabove principle and statement of the legalposition.56. Medical education is what middle-classparents across the length and breadth ofthe county aspire for their children(whether this will continue to be so infuture is a moot question). There isintense competition for a limited number ofunder-graduate, post-graduate and super-speciality seats. This can furnish noPage 8 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtjustification for recourse to unfair meansincluding adopting a false claim to belongto the reserved category. The fault - linesof our system, be it in education, healthor law, are that its lethargy and indolencefurnish incentives for the few who chooseto break the Rules to gain an unfairadvantage. In such a situation, the courtas a vital institution of democraticgovernance must be firm in sending out aprincipled message that there is noincentive other than for behaviourcompliant with Rules and deviance will meetsevere reprimands of the law.I. Conclusion57. For these reasons, we hold and declarethat:- (i) The directions which were issued by theConstitution Bench of this Court inparagraph 38 of the decision in Milind (AIR2001 SC 393) were in pursuance of thepowers vested in this Court Under Article142 of the Constitution; (ii) Since the decision of this Court inMadhuri Patil (AIR 1995 SC 94) which wasrendered on 2 September 1994, the regimewhich held the field in pursuance of thosedirections envisaged a detailed procedurefor (a) the issuance of caste certificates;(b) scrutiny and verification of caste andtribe claims by Scrutiny Committees to beconstituted by the State Government; (c)the procedure for the conduct ofinvestigation into the authenticity of theclaim; (d) Cancellation and confiscation ofPage 9 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtthe caste certificate where the claim isfound to be false or not genuine; (e)Withdrawal of benefits in terms of thetermination of an appointment, cancellationof an admission to an educationalinstitution or disqualification from anelectoral office obtained on the basis thatthe candidate belongs to a reservedcategory; and (f) Prosecution for acriminal offence; (iii) The decisions of this Court in R.Vishwanatha Pillai (AIR 2004 SC 1469) andin Dattatray (AIR 2008 SC 1678) which wererendered by benches of three Judges laiddown the principle of law that where abenefit is secured by an individual - suchas an appointment to a post or admission toan educational institution - on the basisthat the candidate belongs to a reservedcategory for which the benefit is reserved,the invalidation of the caste or tribeclaim upon verification would result in theappointment or, as the case may be, theadmission being rendered void or non est. (iv) The exception to the above doctrinewas in those cases where this Courtexercised its power Under Article 142 ofthe Constitution to render completejustice; (v) By Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 thereis a legislative codification of the broadprinciples enunciated in Madhuri Patil (AIR1995 SC 94). The legislation provides astatutory framework for regulating theissuance of caste certificates (Section 4);constitution of Scrutiny Committees forPage 10 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtverification of claims (Section 6);submission of applications for verificationof caste certificates (Section 6(2) and6(3); cancellation of caste certificates(Section 7); burden of proof (Section 8);withdrawal of benefits obtained upon theinvalidation of the claim (Section 10); andinitiation of prosecution (Section 11),amongst other things; (vi) The power conferred by Section 7 uponthe Scrutiny Committee to verify a claim isboth in respect of caste certificatesissued prior to and subsequent to theenforcement of the Act on 18 October 2001.Finality does not attach to a castecertificate (or to the claim to receivebenefits) where the claim of the individualto belong to a reserved caste, tribe orclass is yet to be verified by the ScrutinyCommittee; (vii) Withdrawal of benefits secured on thebasis of a caste claim which has been foundto be false and is invalidated is anecessary consequence which flows from theinvalidation of the caste claim and noissue of retrospectivity would arise; (viii) The decisions in Kavita Solunke andShalini of two learned Judges areoverruled. Shalini in so far as itstipulates a requirement of a dishonestintent for the application of the provisionof Section 10 is, with respect, erroneousand does not reflect the correct positionin law; (ix) Mens rea is an ingredient of the penalPage 11 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtprovisions contained in Section 11. Section11 is prospective and would apply in thosesituations where the act constituting theoffence has taken place after the date ofits enforcement; (x) The judgment of the Full Bench of theBombay High Court in Arun Sonone (AIR 2015Bom 123) is manifestly erroneous and isoverruled; and (xi) Though the power of the Supreme CourtUnder Article 142 of the Constitution is aconstitutional power vested in the courtfor rendering complete justice and is apower which is couched in wide terms, theexercise of the jurisdiction must have dueregard to legislative mandate, where a lawsuch as Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 holdsthe field.58. We will, now in the light of thereasons indicated above, proceed to disposeof the individual cases in the followingterms: 1. Chairman and Managing Director FCI v.Jagdish Balaram Bahira42 :42. C.A. No.8928 of 2015. On 6 December 1984, Food Corporation ofIndia offered appointment to the Respondenton the post of Messenger - Depot which wasreserved for the Scheduled Tribes on thebasis of a caste certificate dated 28August 1978 issued by the ExecutiveMagistrate, Panvel, stating that theapplicant was a Hindu Mahadev Kohli andPage 12 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odthence belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. Upon adeclaration submitted by the Respondent hewas appointed to the post on 8 January 1985in the Scheduled Tribe quota. TheRespondent received promotional benefits inthe post of Dusting Operator (13 August1990), Senior Dusting Operator (30 December2000), Picker (1 December 2003) and SeniorPicker (20 December 2005). The castecertificate submitted by the Respondent wasinvalidated by the Scrutiny Committee,Konkan Division, Thane. The claim of theRespondent to belong to the Mahadeo KoliScheduled Tribe was found not to beestablished and the certificate wasaccordingly invalidated and cancelled.Following this his services were terminatedon 4 October 2013. The Respondent instituted writ proceedingsbefore the Bombay High Court to challengethe order of the Scrutiny Committee and histermination from service. By a judgmentdated 4 April 2014 the High Court notedthat the Respondent was seeking onlyprotection of his services and was willingto give up the claim of belonging to aScheduled Tribe. By its judgment, the HighCourt accepted the contention of theRespondent and held that he was entitled toprotection of services with continuitywhile the management would be at liberty towithdraw such benefits as were grantedafter 28 September 2000. The employer moveda Special Leave Petition and in pursuanceof an interim order dated 11 August 2014,the Respondent was reinstated in serviceand was granted further promotions.Eventually upon his superannuation on 31Page 13 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtAugust 2015 the Respondent was granted histerminal benefits including gratuity,arrears of wage revision, medicalreimbursement, leave encashment,contributory provident fund andproductivity linked incentive. During the pendency of the litigation, theRespondent is retired from service and haseven been paid his terminal dues. Hence, atthis stage, all that can be observed isthat no claim by a member of Mahdeo Koli,Scheduled Caste shall be made orentertained on behalf of the Respondent orany member of his family on the strength ofthe caste certificate which has beeninvalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. Nofurther benefits of any nature whatsoeverwould be admissible to the Respondent onthe basis of his claim which has beeninvalidated. However, in the peculiarfacts, we are not inclined to orderrecovery has to be made from theRespondent. The Civil Appeal is disposedof. 2. Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. v.Raju Laxman Gadekar and Ors. and43. (Civil Appeal No. 9155 of 2015). 3. State of Maharashtra v. Raju LaxmanGadekar & Ors.:44. (Civil Appeal No. 9157 of 2015). In September 1981, Raju Laxman Gadekarobtained a caste certificate that hebelonged to the Halba Scheduled Tribe inPage 14 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtMaharashtra. On the strength of the castecertificate, he was appointed as anAssistant Teacher in a post reserved for aScheduled Tribe in Shri Shivaji High-School, Dongaon on 24 June 1989. On 2 March2005, he filled up an application in Form Eand submitted an affidavit in Form Fthrough his employer to the ScrutinyCommittee, which was invalidated on 20February 2008. Since the claim that hebelonged to a Scheduled Tribe wasinvalidated, his services were terminatedby the employer on 26 February 2008. Thechallenge to the order of terminationfailed before the School Tribunal. The writpetition challenging the order of theScrutiny Committee was dismissed on 7August 2009. The order of the SchoolTribunal was challenged in a separate WritPetition which was allowed by a learnedSingle Judge of the High Court on 16October 2009 and the employee was directedto be reinstated. In an appeal by theemployer, the Division Bench set aside thejudgment of the learned Single Judge on 17April 2010 and dismissed the writ petition.A Special Leave Petition filed by theemployee Under Article 136 of theConstitution was dismissed by this Court asnot pressed on 1 October 2010. Thereafterthe Respondent filed a writ petitionpraying for his reinstatement andprotection of his service. By the judgmentdated 5/8/9/10 July 2013 the High Courtheld that the employee was entitled to theprotection of his services. From the narration of the facts it is clearthat the Writ Petition filed by thePage 15 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtemployee challenging the order of theScrutiny Committee was dismissed on 7August 2009 and it has been held that hedoes not belong to the Halba ScheduledTribe. The caste certificate which wasobtained by the Respondent has beendemonstrated to be a false castecertificate. The challenge to the order oftermination also attained finality sincethe Special Leave Petition against thejudgment of the High Court was dismissed asnot pressed. In the circumstances, the HighCourt has clearly erred in allowingprotection of service to the employee. Sucha direction is also contrary to theprovisions of Maharashtra Act XXIII of2001. The appointment secured by theRespondent on the basis of a false casteclaim was required to be withdrawn in termsof provisions of Section 10. There has beena complete misuse of the process by theRespondent. We, therefore, allow the Civil Appeals andset aside the judgments and orders of theHigh Court dated 10 April 2013 and 5/8/9/10July 2013. In the circumstances, there shall be noorder as to costs. 4. State of Maharashtra v. Ku. Chhaya D/o.Hemraj Nimje and Ors.:45. (Civil Appeal No. 9160 of 2015). Chhaya Nimje obtained a caste certificateon 20 July 1991 from the ExecutiveMagistrate, Narkhed to the effect that shePage 16 of 44
Arguments
905-CA-6093-2024.odtthe Hon'ble Court.V) That, one more aspect in the above saidcircumstances was remaining to the addressthat the Judgment and order of Hon'ble HighCourt in case of Shrikant Saindane Vs.State of Maharashtra delivered in WritPetition No. 2136/2011 dated 25.08.2011 ispending before this Hon'ble Court underconsideration by way of SLP No. 033356-033370/2011. As this issue was remained tobe addressed while hearing the WritPetition, this is also one of the ground toconsider in the Review Petition and hencethis is also a good ground for ReviewPetition.4.His contention is that in the light of thejudgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inChairman and Managing Director, FCI and Ors. v. JagdishBalaram Bahira and Ors, AIR 2017 SC 3271, fraudulentclaims have to be identified and those who haveobtained jobs on the basis of the caste certificates oron the basis of forged caste certificates and do nothave a validity certificate of a particular caste ortribe, should not be allowed to continue in employmentand they should be deprived of all benefits flowingfrom their service which is obtained on the basis of afraud. He places strong reliance on the observations ofPage 3 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman and ManagingDirector, FCI (supra) from paragraph nos. 53 to 63,which read thus:53. Administrative circulars and governmentresolutions are subservient to legislativemandate and cannot be contrary either toconstitutional norms or statutoryprinciples. Where a candidate has obtainedan appointment to a post on the solemnbasis that he or she belongs to adesignated caste, tribe or class for whomthe post is meant and it is found uponverification by the Scrutiny Committee thatthe claim is false, the services of such anindividual cannot be protected by takingrecourse to administrative circulars orresolutions. Protection of claims of ausurper is an act of deviance to theconstitutional scheme as well as tostatutory mandate. No government resolutionor circular can override constitutional orstatutory norms. The principle thatgovernment is bound by its own circulars iswell-settled but it cannot apply in asituation such as present. Protecting theservices of a candidate who is found not tobelong to the community or tribe for whomthe reservation is intended substantiallyencroaches upon legal rights of genuinemembers of the reserved communities whosejust entitlements are negated by the grantof a seat to an ineligible person. In sucha situation where the rights of genuinemembers of reserved groups or communitiesare liable to be affected detrimentally,government circulars or resolutions cannotoperate to their detriment.Page 4 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odt54. One of the considerations which isplaced in store before the courtparticularly when an admission to aneducational institution is sought to becancelled upon the invalidation of a casteor tribe claim is that the student hassubstantially progressed in the course ofstudies and a cancellation of admissionwould result in prejudice not only to thestudent but to the system as well. When thestudent has completed the degree ordiploma, a submission against itswithdrawal is urged a fortiorari. In ourview, the state legislature has made astatutory decision amongst competingclaims, based on a public policyperspective which the court must respect.The argument that there is a loss ofproductive societal resources when aneducational qualification is withdrawn or astudent is compelled to leave the course ofstudies (when he or she is found not tobelong to the caste or tribe on the basisof which admission to a reserved seat wasobtained) cannot possibly outweigh ornullify the legislative mandate containedin Section 10 of the state legislation.When a candidate is found to have put fortha false claim of belonging to a designatedcaste, tribe or class for whom a benefit isreserved, it would be a negation of therule of law to exercise the jurisdictionunder Article 142 to protect thatindividual. Societal good lies in ensuringprobity. That is the only manner in whichthe sanctity of the system can bepreserved. The legal system cannot be seenas an avenue to support those who makePage 5 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtuntrue claims to belong to a caste or tribeor socially and educationally backwardclass. These benefits are provided only todesignated castes, tribes or classes inaccordance with the constitutional schemeand cannot be usurped by those who do notbelong to them. The credibility not merelyof the legal system but also of thejudicial process will be eroded if suchclaims are protected in exercise of theconstitutional power conferred by Article142 despite the state law. 55. This aspect has been considered in arecent judgment rendered by one of us inNidhi Kaim and Another V. State of MadhyaPradesh And Others (2017) 4 SCC 1, wherein,speaking for a Bench of three Judges, in acase of systemic fraud in relation tomedical admissions in the State of MadhyaPradesh. It was observed as follows : “92...We are of the considered view thatconferring rights or benefits on theAppellants, who had consciouslyparticipated in a well thought out, andmeticulously orchestrated plan, tocircumvent well laid down norms, forgaining admission to the MBBS course, wouldamount to espousing the cause of "theunfair". It would seem like allowing athief to retain the stolen property. Itwould seem as if the Court was notsupportive of the cause of those who hadadopted and followed rightful means. Such acourse would cause people to question thecredibility of the justice-delivery systemitself. The exercise of jurisdiction in themanner suggested on behalf of thePage 6 of 44
Decision
905-CA-6093-2024.odtbelongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. Onthe basis of the caste certificate sheobtained appointment as an AssistantTeacher on 24 December 1996 in Bhimrao BapuDeshmukh Adarsh Vidyalaya. On 9 March shefilled up an application in Form E togetherwith an affidavit in Form F Under Rule 11of the Maharashtra ST (Regulation ofIssuance & Verification of) CasteCertificate Rules, 2003. The Vigilance Cellsubmitted a report showing that her recordswere of the Koshti community. Before theScrutiny Committee could decide her claimshe approached the High Court in a writpetition seeking protection of service. TheHigh Court disposed of the writ petition on30 January 2013, on the statement of theemployer that her services will not beterminated unless the caste certificate isinvalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. Sheagain filed a Writ Petition before the HighCourt seeking protection of her services. The Respondent has no right to claimprotection of her services. The Respondenthas misused the process of law by filingsuccessive writ petitions to pre-empt anadjudication by the Scrutiny Committee andthen confining the claim only to theprotection of her services. For the reasons which are indicated in thebody of the judgment and for the abovereasons, the Civil Appeal is allowed andimpugned judgment and order of the HighCourt is set aside. No other submission isurged. In the circumstances, there shall be noPage 17 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtorder as to costs. 5. State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Mrs.Arundhati Suresh Ninawe and Anr.:46. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9203-04 of 2015). The Respondent was appointed as a Lectureron a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribeson 20 March 1997 on the basis of a castecertificate dated 18 May 1995 stating thatshe belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe.The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated thecaste certificate and directed it to beconfiscated. The High Court by its orderdated 26 November 2012 has confirmed theorder of invalidation but has grantedprotection of service. By a subsequentorder the High Court has ordered the Stateto consider revision/refixation of payscales. For the reasons indicated by this Courtwhile disposing of Civil Appeal Nos. 9155and 9157 of 2015 and for those contained inthe body of the judgment, the Civil Appealsare allowed. The impugned judgments andorders of the High Court are set aside. Noother submission is urged. There shall, however, be no order as tocosts. 6. Mahatma Fule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. NagnathBaburao Mangrule and Ors.:47. (Civil Appeal No. 8296 of 2015). The Respondent was appointed as anPage 18 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtAgricultural Assistant on a post reservedfor the Scheduled Tribes on 22 July 1996 onthe basis of a caste certificate dated 3February 1991 stating that he belongs tothe Mahadeo Koli tribe. On 26 August 2011the Respondent submitted his castecertificate and other documents forverification of the caste claim, which wereforwarded to the Scrutiny Committee. In themeantime the Appellant initiated adepartmental enquiry against the Respondentand terminated the services of theRespondent by its order dated 18 December2012. Subsequently the Scrutiny Committeeinvalidated the caste claim of theRespondent by its order dated 3 October2013. The High Court by its order dated 4April 2014 has confirmed the order ofinvalidation but has granted protection ofservice. For the reasons indicated in the body of thejudgment and those indicated while allowingCivil Appeal Nos. 9155 and 9157 of 2015,the Civil Appeal shall stand allowed. Theimpugned judgment and order of the HighCourt is set aside insofar as it protectsthe services of the Respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Suresh S/o. Dewaji Vairagade v. TheController General, Indian Bureau of Mines,Indira Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur andAnr.:48. (Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2010). The Appellant was appointed as an AssistantPage 19 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtStore Keeper on a post reserved for theScheduled Tribes on 14 November 1988 on thestrength of a caste certificate dated 14January 1985 stating that he belongs to theHalba Schedule Tribe. The ScrutinyCommittee by its order dated 30 August 2005invalidated the caste claim of theAppellant. Subsequently the Respondentterminated the services of the Appellant inpursuance of the proviso to Sub Rule 1 ofRule 5 of the Central Services (TemporaryServices) Rules, 1965. Being aggrieved, theAppellant filed a writ petition which wasdismissed by the High Court by its orderdated 3 August 2009. Having due regard for the reasons containedin the body of this judgment, we find noerror in the judgment of the High Court.The Civil Appeal shall stand dismissed. Noother submission is urged. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Rajendra S/o. Ramaji Mahisbadwe v. TheJoint Commissioner and Vice-ChairmanScheduled Tribe, Caste Certificate ScrutinyCommittee & Anr.:49. (Civil Appeal No. 9157 of 2015). The Appellant was appointed as a traineetechnician in Air India on a post reservedfor the Scheduled Tribes on 6 August 1997on the basis of a caste certificate dated 9August 1988 stating that he belongs to theHalba Schedule Tribe. Thereafter theappointment of the Appellant was confirmedon 1 March 1999. The second RespondentPage 20 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtsought a clarification from Tehsildar,Nagpur to ascertain whether the castecertificate is genuine or not. TheTehsildar by a letter dated 17 October 2008stated that the name of the Appellant isnot borne in the records. Accordingly thesecond Respondent terminated the servicesof the Appellant by an order dated 3November 2009. The Scrutiny Committee byits order dated 5 October 2012 invalidatedthe caste claim of the Appellant. The High Court by its judgment dated 11March 2013 has declined to grant protectionto the services of the Appellant upon theinvalidation of his claim to belong to theHalba Scheduled Tribe by the ScrutinyCommittee on 5 October 2012. There is aclear and patent misuse of process by theAppellant. In the absence of the castevalidity certificate, the appointment ofthe Appellant cannot be held to haveattained finality. Having due regard to thereasons contained in the body of thisjudgment, we find no error in the judgmentof the High Court. The Civil Appeal shallstand dismissed. No other submission isurged. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Chhaya D/o. Yadaorao Barapatre @ ChhayaW/o. Rajeev Dhakate v. The State ofMaharashtra and Ors.:50 (Civil Appeal No. 9158-59 of 2015) The Appellant was appointed as a JuniorLecturer in the fourth Respondent HighPage 21 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtSchool on a post reserved for the ScheduledTribes on 2 July 1991 on the basis of acaste certificate dated 23 July 1984stating that she belongs to the HalbaSchedule Tribe. On 14 March 1997 theAppellant's appointment as a JuniorLecturer was confirmed by the fourthRespondent. The Scrutiny Committeeinvalidated the caste claim of theAppellant by its order dated 8 November2012. The High Court by its impugnedjudgment and order dated 5 April 2013 hasdeclined to grant protection of services.The Appellant preferred a review which wasdismissed by the High Court by its orderdated 10 May 2013. For the reasonscontained in the body of the judgment andhaving due regard to the invalidation ofthe claim of the Respondent by the ScrutinyCommittee, we find no error in the judgmentof the High Court. The Civil Appeals areaccordingly dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs. 10. Ravindra Govindrao Nagpurkar v.Secretary, Rajasthan Education SocietyWashim and Ors.:51. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8604/05/17 @ SLP (C)Nos. 33864-65 of 2015) The Appellant was appointed as a Lecturer ona post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on14 August 1995 on the basis of a castecertificate dated 13 May 1982 stating thathe belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe.The caste claim of the Appellant wasinvalidated by the Scrutiny Committee byits order dated 18 January 2005. ThereafterPage 22 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtthe Appellant was issued a show causenotice dated 3 January 2006 by the firstRespondent to explain why his servicesshould not be terminated. On 16 January2006 the Appellant filed a writ petitionand challenged the show cause notice.However, on the same day the firstRespondent had already issued an order oftermination. Thereafter the High Courtgranted permission to withdraw the writpetition and liberty was granted to fileproceedings before the appropriate forum.The Appellant preferred an appeal beforethe University & College Tribunal, Nagpurwhich was dismissed by the tribunal by itsorder dated 30 December 2012. The HighCourt by its impugned judgment and orderdated 18.3.2013 has declined to grantprotection of services. The Review Petitionwas also dismissed on 29 November 2013. For the reasons contained in the body of thejudgment and having due regard to theinvalidation of the claim of the Respondentby the Scrutiny Committee, we find no errorin the judgment of the High Court. TheCivil Appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Shri Shivaji Education Society and Anr.v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.:52. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8601/17 @ SLP (C)No. 289 of 2016). The third Respondent was appointed as anAssistant Teacher on a post reserved forthe Scheduled Tribes on the basis of aPage 23 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtcaste certificate showing him as belongingto the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. By its orderdated 23 April 2008 the Scrutiny Committeeinvalidated the tribe claim and confiscatedhis certificate. The services of the thirdRespondent were terminated on 12 May 2008.While dismissing the writ petitionchallenging the order of the ScrutinyCommittee the High Court by its order dated15 December 2015 has none the less directedreinstatement of the third Respondentsubject to an undertaking that he would notclaim the benefit of belonging to theScheduled Tribe in future. Once the tribeclaim of the Respondent has been held to befalse, the judgment of the High Court isunsustainable for the reasons indicated inthe body of this judgment. The Civil Appealis accordingly allowed and the judgment andorder of the High Court dated 15 December2015 is set aside. In consequence the WritPetition filed by the third Respondentshall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v.Murlidhar Arjun Neware and Anr.:53. (C.A. No. 8602-03/17 @ SLP (C) Nos.529-30 of 2016). The Respondent was appointed on the post ofAssistant Engineer (Grade-I) reserved forthe Scheduled Tribes on 11 March 1992 onthe strength of a caste certificate statingthat he belongs to the Gondgowari tribe.The Scrutiny Committee initially by anorder dated 23 June 2004 rejected the tribePage 24 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtclaim. Subsequently in pursuance of orderof remand passed by the High Court, theScrutiny Committee investigated into thematter again and invalidated the tribeclaim by its order dated 2 January 2006 andordered the tribe certificate to becancelled. The High Court dismissed theWrit Petition filed by the Respondent on 10November 2006 and the review petition wasalso dismissed for want of prosecution on 5April 2006. However, subsequently thereview petition, after restoration, wasallowed on 30 January 2015 and while thecancellation of the caste certificate wasupheld protection to the services of theRespondent was granted. For the reasons contained in the body of thejudgment and having due regard to the factthat the claim of the Respondent has beenfound to be false, we find merit in theappeals which have been filed by theAppellant. The impugned judgments of theHigh Court dated 30 January 2015 areaccordingly set aside. The writ proceedingsfiled by the Respondent shall, in thecircumstances, stand dismissed. The CivilAppeals are allowed in these terms. Noother submission is urged. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. India Trade Promotion Organisation v.Vivek kumar Lajjashankar Chaurasiya:54. (C.A. No.8607/17 @ SLP (C) No. 14830 OF2015). The Scrutiny Committee by its order datedPage 25 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odt30 March 2013 has found that the Respondentdoes not belong to the Nagawanshi tribe.The Respondent was appointed on a postreserved for the Scheduled Tribes on thestrength of a certificate that he belongsto the Nagawanshi tribe. The Division Benchof the High Court, placing reliance on thejudgment of the Full Bench in Arun Sonone'scase (supra), has by its judgment dated 16February 2015 granted reinstatement to theRespondent. For the reasons contained in the body of thejudgment, the appeal filed by the employershall have to be allowed and is accordinglyallowed. The impugned judgment of the HighCourt dated 16 February 2015 is set aside.No other submission is urged. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Mumbai Metropolitan Region DevelopmentAuthority v. Rajendra Ramchandra Dhakateand Anr.:55. (Civil Appeal 8609/17 @ SLP (C)No.13409 of 2015) The claim of the Respondent to belong to theHalba Scheduled Tribe has been invalidatedby the Scrutiny Committee by its orderdated 30 July 1998. The Scrutiny Committeehas found that the documents submitted bythe first Respondent were manipulated andfabricated. The Respondent was appointed toa post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes onthe basis of a caste certificate statingthat he belongs to the Halba ScheduledTribe. The termination of the services thePage 26 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtRespondent has followed upon thecancellation of the caste certificate. In the circumstances and for the reasonscontained in the body of the judgment, theHigh Court erred in allowing the writpetition filed by the Respondent anddirecting the Appellant to reinstate him.The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed bysetting aside the impugned judgment andorder of the High Court dated 20 January2015. The writ petition filed by theRespondent shall, in the circumstances,stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. State of Maharashtra v. Vasant, S/o.Gyandeo Gonnade:56. (Civil Appeal 8606/17 @ SLP (C) No.19992 of 2015) The Respondent was appointed on the post ofJunior Engineer on 21 July 1982 on thebasis of a claim of belonging to the "HalbaKoshti" Scheduled Tribe. The ScrutinyCommittee invalidated his claim on 19August 1985. In the meantime, theMaharashtra Public Service Commissionrecommended the Respondent for appointmentin the cadre of Assistant Engineer in 1984and 1986 but he was not granted placement.The Respondent filed a writ petition tochallenge the order of the ScrutinyCommittee dated 19 August 1985 which wasdismissed by the High Court on 4 July 1986.Thereafter the Respondent filed an appeal(Caste Appeal) 11/1986-87 before thePage 27 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtDivisional Commissioner, Nagpur against theorder of the Scrutiny Committee. The appealwas disposed of on 23 August 1985 byremanding the proceedings back to theScrutiny Committee. On remand, the ScrutinyCommittee, by its order dated 28 August1989 found that the Respondent does notbelong to the Scheduled Tribe and cancelledhis caste certificate. The Respondent filedan appeal before the Additional DivisionalCommissioner, Nagpur which was dismissed on12 November 1990. The Respondent filed awrit petition challenging the invalidationof his caste claim and to seek relief inrespect of his service conditions. By anorder dated 23 March 1995 the writ petitionwas allowed by holding that the Respondentbelongs to the Halba Koshti caste but thatwas made subject to the decision in Milind(AIR 2001 SC 393) (supra). The Respondent was granted placement in theseniority of Assistant Engineer with effectfrom 29 July 1987, subject to the finaloutcome of the proceedings in Milind(supra). On 18 October 1995 the Respondentwas appointed as Assistant ExecutiveEngineer subject to the decision in Milind(supra) and he joined on 4 December 1995.On 4 October 1999 the Respondent waspromoted to the post of Executive Engineersubject to the final disposal of theproceedings before this Court in Milind(supra). It was directed that the senioritywould be fixed after the final decision ofthis Court. On 15 September 2000 theRespondent was given a deemed date of 29May 1987. On 15 April 2005, considering thejudgment of this Court in Milind (supra),Page 28 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtthe appointment of the Respondent to thepost of Assistant Executive Engineer wasprotected and he was regularized on thepost considering it as an open categorypost. His seniority was directed to befixed from the date of appointment and itwas ordered that he shall not get thebenefit of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe.On 6 August 2005 the earlier deemed date of29 May 1987 was modified and his seniorityon the post of Assistant Executive Engineerwas fixed from 4 December 1995. On 5 June2006 a G.R. was issued by which the deemeddate was modified to 29 May 1987 on thepost of Assistant Executive Engineer forthe purpose of seniority. On 1 August 2009a G.R. was issued by which the deemed datefor the purpose of seniority on the post ofExecutive Engineer was set as 29 May 1991subject to approval of the M.P.S.C. On 28April 2014 the State Government published aseniority list from 1 January 2011 to 13December 2013 for Executive Engineer. The Respondent who was aggrieved by the G.R.dated 28 April 2014 filed a writ petitionbefore the High Court at its Nagpur Benchpraying for an appropriate writ for thedeclaration of the date of his seniority.The High Court by its judgment dated 27February 2015 has adverted to the decisionin Arun Sonone (AIR 2015 Bom 125) and hascome to the conclusion that the G.R. dated6 August 2005 is not sustainable and thestate government has been directed to giveeffect to its G.R.s dated 15 September 2000and 15 April 2005 by placing the Respondentin the cadre of Assistant Engineer witheffect from 29 May 1987.Page 29 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odt From a reading of the judgment of the HighCourt, it is clear that the primaryconsideration which weighed with it was thedecision of its Full Bench in Arun Sonone.In view of the reasons contained in thebody of this judgment, this basis of theimpugned decision of the High Court iserroneous. The Respondent does not belongto the Halba Scheduled Tribe. It is alsoclear that the benefits obtained by theRespondent were subject to the decision inMilind (AIR 2001 SC 393). In Milind, thisCourt has held that Halba - Koshti is not aScheduled Tribe, the relevant entry in theScheduled Tribes Order 1950 being 'Halba,Halbi'. We accordingly allow the Civil Appeal andset aside the impugned judgment dated 27February 2015. There shall be no order as to costs.16. State of Maharashtra v. Ku. VijayaDeorao Nandanwar and Anr.:57. (C.A. No. 9107 of 2015). The claim of the Respondent of belonging tothe Halba Scheduled Tribe has beeninvalidated by the Scrutiny Committee byits order dated 7 November 2009. TheRespondent was appointed as an AssistantTeacher on a post reserved for theScheduled Tribes. Following theinvalidation of the claim, the services ofthe Respondent were terminated. The HighCourt by its impugned order dated 5 JulyPage 30 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odt2013 set aside the order of termination andgranted protection to the service of theRespondent. For the reasons contained in the body of thejudgment, the impugned order of the HighCourt is unsustainable and is accordinglyset aside. The writ petition filed by theRespondent shall, in the circumstances,stand dismissed. The Civil Appeal isallowed in these terms. No other submissionhas been urged. There shall be no order as to costs.17. Ishwar Shrawan Nikhare v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.:58. (Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2013). The Appellant was appointed as an AssistantTeacher in a vacancy reserved for theScheduled Tribes on 30 January 1999. TheCaste Scrutiny Committee invalidated theclaim of the Appellant on 1 July 2008. TheDivision Bench of the High Court, by itsorder dated 30 January 2009 allowed therequest for the withdrawal of the writpetition filed by the Appellant keepingopen the validity of the observations madeby the Scrutiny Committee wherebyprosecution was ordered. The services ofthe Appellant were terminated on 8 February2009. The Appellant filed an appeal beforethe School Tribunal which was dismissed on19 October 2011 on the ground that theappointment of the Appellant was not avalid appointment in the eye of law. Thelearned Single Judge dismissed the writPage 31 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtpetition challenging the order of theTribunal. A Letters Patent Appeal has beendismissed by the Division Bench by itsjudgment dated 7 May 2012. Having regard tothe fact that the claim of the Appellant tobelong to a Scheduled Tribe was invalidatedby the Scrutiny Committee, the SchoolTribunal cannot be faulted in declining toentertain the appeal against theconsequential order of termination ofservice. Moreover, for the reasonscontained in the body of the presentjudgment, we find no merit in the CivilAppeal. The Civil Appeal is accordinglydismissed. No other submission has beenurged. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Eknath Barikrao Dhanwade v. DivisionalController, State Transport Corporation andAnr.:59. (Civil Appeal 5608/17 @ SLP (C)… CC No.10889 of 2015). The Appellant was appointed as a driver in1999 with the Respondent on a post reservedfor Scheduled Tribes on the basis of acaste certificate that he belongs to theMahadeo Koli tribe. The Appellant's casteclaim was rejected by the ScrutinyCommittee holding that the Appellant doesnot belong to the said tribe. A writpetition was filed by the Appellant. TheHigh Court by an order dated 11 January2000 remanded the matter to the ScrutinyCommittee. On 2 March 2001 the ScrutinyCommittee invalidated the tribe claim ofPage 32 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtthe Appellant. The Appellant filed a WritPetition before the High Court. By an orderdated 30 June 2014, the High Courtdismissed the petition. The Appellant filedanother writ petition which was dismissedwith costs by an order dated 19 September2014. Subsequently on 19 November 2014 thefirst Respondent terminated the service ofthe Appellant. Being aggrieved, theAppellant filed another writ petition whichwas dismissed by the High Court by itsorder 19 January 2015. The above narrationindicates a complete abuse of process bythe Appellant. For the reasons contained in the body of thepresent judgment and in view of the above,we find no merit in the appeal. The CivilAppeal is accordingly dismissed. No othersubmission is separately urged. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Pradip Gajanan Koli v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.:60. (Civil Appeal No. 8598/17 @ SLP (C)18925 of 2014). The Appellant was appointed to the post ofFireman in the reserved category for theScheduled Tribes on 12 March 1996.Thereafter a caste certificate dated 22June 2000 certifying that the Appellantbelongs to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribewas issued. The caste certificate wasreferred to the Scrutiny Committee forverification. The Appellant submitted anaffidavit stating that he belongs to thePage 33 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtsaid caste and also appeared before theCommittee. By an order dated 7 July 2012the Scrutiny Committee invalidated thecaste certificate of the Appellant. TheAppellant filed a writ petition which wasdisposed of by the High Court, by itsjudgment and order dated 20 November 2013with a direction that in case the Appellantis still in service as on that date, hisemployment shall not be terminated for aperiod of three months from the date of itsorder. For the reasons contained in the body of thepresent judgment, we find no error in theimpugned judgment. The Civil Appeal isaccordingly dismissed. No other submissionis separately urged.There shall be no order as to costs. 20. Union of India and Ors. v. Suryakantand Ors.:61. (Civil Appeal No. 8597/17 @ SLP (C) No.16852 of 2016) The Director General, Vigilance, New Delhiby an order dated 1 July 2005, initiatedthe verification of tribe certificates ofemployees who were appointed from 1995.Accordingly, the original tribe certificateof the Respondent was asked to be produced.The Respondent was appointed on the post ofLower Division Clerk reserved for theScheduled Tribes on the strength of a castecertificate stating that he belongs to theMahadeo Koli tribe. The certificate wasissued by the Tahsildar, Akola on 13 MayPage 34 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odt1985. Subsequently on enquiry about theauthenticity of the tribe certificate, theTahsildar, Akola informed that the registerfor the year 1985 was not traceable andhence it cannot be stated whethercertificate was issued by office orotherwise. Instead of submitting hisoriginal caste certificate the Respondentproduced a fresh tribe certificate dated 21July 2005 issued by S.D.O., Bhusawalwherein it was stated that he belongs tothe Mahadeo Koli tribe. By an order dated10 October 2011 the Scrutiny Committeeinvalidated the caste claim of theRespondent. The Respondent filed a writpetition before the High Court. The HighCourt by its impugned judgment and orderdated 20 October 2015 allowed the writpetition, relying upon its Full Benchjudgment in Arun Sonone (AIR 2015 Bom 123)(supra) with a direction that theRespondent is entitled to claim serviceprotection and shall not be entitled toclaim promotion in employment. The narration of facts reveals a completemisuse of process by the Respondent. Forthe reasons contained in the body of thejudgment, the impugned order of the HighCourt is unsustainable and is accordinglyset aside. The Civil Appeal is accordinglyallowed in these terms. No separatesubmission is urged. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. Executive Director (Lubes), Indian OilCorporation Ltd. v. Ashok MahadeoraoPathrabe and Ors.:Page 35 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odt62 (Civil Appeal Nos. 8599-8600/17 @ SLP(C) Nos. 29388-89 of 2016) The Respondent joined IOCL in 1976 at its R& D Centre, Faridabad. At the time of theappointment, the Respondent has shownhimself as belonging to the Halba ScheduledTribe. The appointment was subject to theinformation submitted by the Respondentbeing true and correct. The Respondentsubmitted his caste certificate along witha prescribed form/documents on 15 December2006 which were forwarded for verification.The Scrutiny Committee rejected the casteclaim of the Respondent on 4 October 2010.Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferredan internal appeal and also a writ petitionbefore the High Court. By its order dated 1March 2011 the Appellant rejected theappeal of the Respondent upholding thedismissal order. Subsequently on 7 December2011 the High Court also dismissed thepetition of the Respondent upholding thedismissal order. Being aggrieved, theRespondent filed a Special Leave Petitionbefore this Court which was dismissed by anorder dated 27 February 2012. The Appellantfiled another writ petition before the HighCourt which was allowed by an order dated24 November 2015 to the extent that theservices of the Respondent were protectedtill his superannuation. The facts narrated above reveal a completemisuse of process by the Respondent. Forthe reasons contained in the body of thejudgment, the impugned orders of the HighCourt are unsustainable and are accordinglyPage 36 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtset aside. The Civil Appeals areaccordingly allowed in these terms. Noother submission is urged. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v.Rupesh S/o. Teksingh Shinde:63. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8610/17 @ SLP (C)No. 2299 of 2017). The Respondent was appointed as a clerk ona post earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis on26 March 1999 claiming that he belongs tothe Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. The casteclaim of the Respondent was referred to theScrutiny Committee for verification and wasinvalidated by an order dated 29 July 2011.As the caste claim was invalidated theRespondent was terminated from service byan order dated 16 August 2011. Beingaggrieved, the Respondent filed a writpetition before the High Court. Afterhearing both the parties, the courtremanded the matter back to the ScrutinyCommittee. The caste certificate was againinvalidated by an order dated 21 January2014 and the Committee observed that theRespondent obtained a false castecertificate and directed the registrationof an FIR against the Respondent, pursuantto which the services of the Respondentwere terminated. Being aggrieved theRespondent filed a writ petition before theHigh Court. The High Court by its impugnedjudgment and order dated 3 February 2016allowed the writ petition relying upon itsFull Bench judgment in the case of ArunPage 37 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtSonone v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2015Bom 123) (supra) with a direction to theAppellant to reinstate the Respondent onhis original post. The facts narrated above indicate the mannerin which the process has been abused by theRespondent. For the reasons contained inthe body of the judgment, the impugnedorder of the High Court is unsustainableand is accordingly set aside. The CivilAppeal is accordingly allowed in theseterms. No other submission is urged. There shall be no order as to costs.Order Accordingly.5.It is well settled in the light of thejudgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inLily Thomas vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650,S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy and others,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1034,Pancham Lal Pandey vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra and others,2023 LiveLaw (SC) 111 : 2023 SCC Online SC 143 : SLP(C) No.3329/2021 decided on 15.02.2023, that a ReviewPetition is not to be canvassed as if a Writ Petitionis being re-heard. If the judgment of the Court isunsustainable on merits, the same has to be challenged.If there is an error which is apparent on the face ofPage 38 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtthe order, a Review can be maintainable.6.The learned AGP, despite his strenuoussubmissions, is unable to point out as to whether thisCourt has wrongly relied upon the judgment delivered inShrikant Chandrakant Saindane vs. The State ofMaharashtra and others (Writ Petition No. 2136/2011decided on 25.08.2011), wherein this Court had observedin paragraph nos.15 to 18 as under:“15.No doubt, that the purpose of the saidcondition is with a noble aim of ensuringthat the reserved seat should be occupiedby a candidate belonging to that particularreserved category and no candidate orperson, not belonging to reserved category,should usurp the said post. However, at thesame time, the Court cannot ignore the factthat it is not in the hands of thecandidates to obtain the certificate beforethey appear for interview or apply for aparticular post. If the the impugnedcondition is upheld, an eventuality cannotbe ruled out that a candidate will have towait till he reaches the maximum age toapply for the post and is given thevalidity certificate after he becomes agebar. In such a situation, a candidatebelonging 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 aparty cannot be asked to do an impossibleact. Reference, in this respect, can bemade to a judgment of the Apex Court in thematter of Mohammed Gazi vs. State of M.P.Page 39 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtand others, reported in 2000 (3) SCALE 6.17.In any case, if any candidate's claim issubsequently invalidated, the law has takencare for the same. Sub-section (1) ofSection 10 of the said Act provides that: 10 Benefits secured on the basis offalse Caste Certificate to be withdrawn.- (1) Whoever not being a personbelonging to any of the Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes,(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, OtherBackward Classes or Special BackwardCategory, secures admission in anyeducational institution against a seatreserved for such Castes, Tribes orClasses, or secures any appointment in theGovernment local authority or in any otherCompany or Corporation, owned or controlledby the Government or in any Governmentaided institution or Co-operative Societyagainst a post reserved for such Castes,Tribes or Classes by producing a falseCaste Certificate shall, on cancellation ofthe Caste Certificate by the ScrutinyCommittee, be liable to be debarred fromthe concerned educational institution, oras the case may be, discharged from thesaid employment forthwith and any otherbenefits enjoyed or derived by virtue ofsuch admission or appointment by suchperson as aforesaid shall be withdrawnforthwith. If an ineligible candidate, who isappointed on the post reserved for reservedcategory, is found to be not belonging tothat category and his caste claim isinvalidated, his services will be liable tobe terminated forthwith and he shall standdischarged from the services. 18. In that view of the matter, we find thatthe said condition is totally unreasonableand as such, liable to be struck off. HencePage 40 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtthe following order:- (i) We allow the petitions and hold thatcondition no.7, in Government Resolutiondated 5th November 2009, is unreasonableand, therefore, is struck off. (ii) Since it is not in dispute, that all thepetitioners are duly selected against apost reserved for particular reservedcategory, we direct the Respondent-employers to forthwith issue provisionalappointment orders in favour of thepetitioners, which shall be subject tovalidation of their caste / tribe claims.The same shall be done within a period ofone month from today. (iii) The respective Respondent- ScrutinyCommittees are directed to decide claim ofthe petitioners as expeditiously aspossible and in any case, within a periodof six months from today. (iv) It is directed that no coercive actionshall be taken against the petitioners onthe ground of non submission of validitycertificate till the Respondent-Committeesdecide claims of the petitioners. (v) It is further directed that in the eventany order adverse to the interest of thepetitioners is passed by the Respondent-Committees, the same shall not be giveneffect for a period of four weeks from thedate of receipt of communication by thepetitioners.”7.The learned AGP further submits that thejudgment delivered in Shrikant Chandrakant Saindane(supra), has been assailed before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt and the Civil Appeal, along with a group ofcases, is pending final adjudication.Page 41 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odt8. In the present case, the Review Petitionercontends that since benefits granted to candidates whohave been selected against reserved category posts,cannot be continued if their claims for validitycertificates have been rejected, they have to sufferthe consequences flowing from the dictum of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, FCI(supra). 9.Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Advocate for theOriginal Petitioner, points out that the State ofMaharashtra has been lenient in the matter of electionsto the local authorities and bodies, where candidatesare permitted to contest elections on the basis ofreserved category claims only on the basis of pendencyof their validity proposal. He submits that he can citeinstances to establish that the candidate has to onlyshow an acknowledgment receipt of a competent caste ortribe Scrutiny Committee to evidence the pendency ofthe proposal for validation and based on such a fringedocumentary evidence, a candidate can be elected.10.He further submits that though the learnedFull Bench of this Court has delivered a judgment inPage 42 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtAnant H. Ulahalkar Vs Chief Election Commissioner, 2017(1) MhLJ 431 (FB), concluding that an elected candidatemust tender a validity certificate in six months fromthe date of election and though the Hon’ble SupremeCourt has laid down the law in Shankar Raghunath Devre(Patil) Vs State, (2019) 3 SCC 220, that the mandate ofsix months is binding, the State of Maharashtra dilutedthe provisions of the Village Panchayat Act and issuedordinances to postpone the period for submission ofvalidity certificate. As a consequence, candidateswithout validity certificates are still occupyingpublic offices.11.Mr. Deshmukh, further points out that afterthis Court delivered a judgment in Shrikant ChandrakantSaindane (supra), the Government of Maharashtra cameout with a Government Resolution dated 12.12.2011,specifically making a reference to the order inShrikant Chandrakant Saindane (supra), in izLrkouk(paragraph) and has recorded that “candidates would begiven appointment orders subject to submitting theirvalidity and subject to the decision of the Hon’bleSupreme Court before which the judgment in ShrikantPage 43 of 44 905-CA-6093-2024.odtChandrakant Saindane has been assailed”12.In this Review Petition, the Review Petitionerhad to demonstrate that this Court has committed anerror which is apparent from the face on record, byfollowing Shrikant Chandrakant Saindane (supra). Wefind that we have rightly followed the purport of theview taken in Shrikant Chandrakant Saindane (supra) andin fact considering paragraph 18(ii) of the saidjudgment, we have directed in paragraph 7 (e) that noright would be crystallized in favour of the OriginalPetitioner after receiving a provisional appointmentorder on probation and he would not be confirmed inemployment till he receives/secures a validitycertificate. We have passed an equitable order whichdoes not suffers from any error. So also, the GR dated12.12.2011 based on Shrikant Chandrakant Saindane(supra), fortifies our view. 13.In view of the above, this Review Petition isrejected. (R. M. JOSHI, J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)MalaniPage 44 of 44