IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3148 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVIEW APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 29834 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8090 OF 2007 VANDANA D/o BHARFAT KAUTHALIKAR.. .. APPLICANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Amol A. Gatne for the applicant Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for R-1 & 2 Ms. A. R. Baxi for R-3 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 18th March, 2010 P.C. On 14/10/09, Writ Petition No. 8090 of 2007 was disposed of by us with a reasoned order. In the writ petition the petitioner had challenged order dated 8/8/2007 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Pune invalidating her claim that she belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. 2. The petition was heard by the Division Bench of this Court (D. K. Deshmukh & V. M. Kanade, JJ.) on 28/1/88. Both the learned judges were of the view that the order of the Scrutiny Committee did not merit any interference and there was no need to remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee. Learned counsel then urged that though the petitioner’s claim was found to be invalid, her services need to be protected. Judgments of the Supreme Court were cited on this point. On this question there was a difference of opinion between the learned judges and hence the matter was referred to Full Bench. The Full Bench found that this point was decided by another Full Bench, which held that the Supreme Court in exercise of its discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can in the facts and circumstances of a case protect the services of a person, but as powers under Article 142 are not available to the High Court, the High Court cannot grant protection. Writ Petition was then directed to be placed before us for disposal. 3. Thus when this court dealt with the petition, the issue whether the petitioner’s caste certificate was correctly invalidated or not was finally decided. The Division Bench of Justice Deshmukh and Justice Kanade had expressed an opinion that there was no need to remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee as the order passed by it needed no interference. Question which had remained to be answered was whether the petitioner’s services were to be protected or not. Since the Full Bench had decided that point against the petitioner, the petition had to be dismissed. When this court expressed this, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Government is likely to extend the benefit of protection of services to the petitioner, pursuant to G.R. dated 15/6/95. Learned counsel sought time to verify the information received by him and made a statement that, if his information is wrong, he would not press the petition. In the interest of justice, we granted some time to the petitioner. On 5/9/09 Counsel made a submission that the information was incorrect. Hence the petition was disposed of as not pressed. 4. It is now submitted by the Counsel that what he meant to convey by his statement that he would not press the petition was that since on merits the earlier Division Bench had decided against him he would not argue on merits. Counsel submitted that he had not made any concession so far as validity of the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee is concerned. Counsel submitted that observations made by us that the petition was not pressed by him would preclude the petitioner from challenging this court’s observation that the Scrutiny Committee’s order was legal and merited no interference in the Supreme Court and, therefore, this court should review it’s order. 5. We must make it clear that the Counsel did make a statement that he will not press the petition, if the information received by him does not help the petitioner. This court, therefore, recorded the exact statement made by him. Perhaps the statement was made by him without realising its effect. Counsel should be careful while making such statements. In fact because of this statement, we merely concurred with Justice Deshmukh and Justice Kanade by giving brief reasons. However, we do not want the concessions made by counsel to affect the petitioner adversely. Therefore, we make it clear that the said concession will not come in the way of the petitioner in challenging the adverse order passed by Justice Deshmukh and Justice Kanade on the merits of the case with which, we have concurred in our order dated 14/10/2009. The review petition is dismissed with the aforesaid directions. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)