17.wp.9498-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.9498 OF 2009 Miss.Shradha Chandrashekhar Koli. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and 2 others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.J.G. Aradwad (Reddy), Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.S. Masurkar, Govt. Pleader with Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for the Respondents ­ State. ... CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & K. K. TATED, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 13, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner’s claim for caste validity was rejected. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court. The petition was dismissed. 2. In the meantime, some other orders of that Committee were before this Court. This Court in Writ Petition No.8413 of 2008 and other Petitions, set­aside the orders on the ground that one of the Members Shri A.V. Hankare was not eligible to be appointed. The Court held that Shri A.V. Hankare is not possessed of intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal 17.wp.9498-09 2 communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities, he cannot be termed as "Member and Research Officer" of the said Committee and accordingly set aside the orders passed by that Committee. 3. Relying on the said judgment, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that all orders passed by that Committee are without jurisdiction and nullity at law. The petitioner against the order of this Court had preferred a Review Petition which was dismissed and SLP was then preferred which was dismissed with liberty to move this Court. 4. In our opinion, merely because a person did not have qualification, cannot result in all the orders which were passed becoming nullities at law. The de facto doctrine is now a part of legal system. The law has been relied upon by the Supreme Court and distinction has been made in respect of a person who is in usurp in his office and the person was appointed but his appointment was defective. We may gainfully refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Co­operative Transport Ltd. reported in AIR 1977 SC 237 and in the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju v. 17.wp.9498-09 3 State of A.P. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1473. 5. In the light of the above, in our opinion, it is not possible to accept the statement made on behalf of the petitioner herein. 6. Even otherwise, when the petition was rejected by order of this Court which has become final, the only way by which the order can be impugned is by way of Review Petition and not by way of an independent Petition. In the light of that, the present petition is not maintainable. However, considering the liberty granted to the petitioner by the learned Supreme Court, it will be open to the petitioner to avail such remedy to which he is entitled to in law by way of a Review Petition. 7. With the above observations, the Petition is disposed of. (K.K.TATED, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)