1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1865 OF 2001 Shri Sunil Bapurao Dharmik ] aged adult, residing at 16-D ] Jayawant Patkar Marg, ] Opposite Podar Hospital, Worli ] Mumbai. ]... Petitioner. versus 1. Maharashtra State Road ] Transport Corporation ] through its General Manager ] (I.R. & P) having its office ] at Vahatuk Bhavan, Mumbai ] Central, Mumbai. ] 2. Maharashtra State Road ] Transport Corporation ] Mumbai Central, Mumbai. ] 3. State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondents. Mr.C K Bhangoji i/by Mr Kuldip Pawar i/by R K Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr Karmalkar G A h/f Mr G S Hegde for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. S M Dandekar, AGP, for the Respondent No.3/State. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 26th June 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER R M SAVANT J.] 1. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order of termination dated 16th July 2001 passed by the Respondent-Corporation. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Divisional/Assistant Accounts Officer by the Respondent No.1 in the post meant for Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner claims to belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe. As per the procedure, the caste certificate of the Petitioner was forwarded to the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation. After following the gamut of procedure laid down for the purpose of validation of the caste certificate, the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate of the Petitioner by its order dated 14th May 2001. Based on the invalidation of the caste certificate of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was issued termination order dated 16th July 2001. In the interregnum, the Petitioner by his letter dated 3 11th July 2001 pointed out to the Respondents/Corporation that his services were liable to be protected in view of the Government Resolution of 1995. However, the Respondents/Corporation did not head to the Petitioner s said request and terminated his services and hence the above Petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents/Corporation. The learned counsel for the Petitioner principally relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v/s Milind, reported in 2000(1) SCC 4. The said judgment is relied upon for the purpose that Petitioner s services ought to have been protected in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in para 38 of the said Judgment which reads thus :- Respondent No.1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practising as a doctor. In this view and at this 4 length of time it is for nobody s benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Schedule Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to Respondent No.1. If any action is taken against Respondent No.1, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practising as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Schedule Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.16372 of 1985 and other related affairs, we make it clear that the admissions and appointment that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this Judgment. 5 The said Judgment took into consideration the resolution issued by the State Government on 15th June 1995 by which resolution the Government resolved that the employees whose caste certificates were invalidated were to be protected if they fulfil the conditions mentioned in the said resolution. 4. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Petitioner was appointed on 1st December 1995. The resolution and the judgment of the Apex Court envisage protection to be granted to the employees who are appointed prior to the resolution dated 15th June 1995. Obviously, the Petitioner did not fulfil the requirements of the said resolution and, therefore, the services of the Petitioner could not be protected. The said issue had also come up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v/s Vilas s/o Govindrao Bodke reported in 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 805. wherein the Apex Court has held that only such of the employees who were appointed prior to the date of the resolution i.e. 15th June 1995 could be protected. 6 5. As observed herein above, since the Petitioner has been appointed on 1st April 1995, the Petitioner does not qualify for such protection. The Petitioner s services had already been terminated in the year 2001. No interim relief was granted in favour of the Petitioner in the above Petition. In that view of the matter, no case for grant of any reliefs is made out by the Petitioner in the above Petition. The above Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Sd/- sd/- [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]