1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 6279 OF 2006 Mukesh Sadashiv Chamorshikar .vs. Executive Officer, The Bhandara Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. N.W. Sambre, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: A.P. LAVANDE & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 12, 2009. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks protection of his service as a Clerk with respondent. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 30.3.2000 on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe since the petitioner claimed that he belonged to Halba Tribe. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by order dated 21.10.2002 invalidated the caste certificate. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 663/03 challenging the order passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee. The said petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 24.4.2003. Review Application filed against the said order was also dismissed by order dated 25.7.2003. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that thereafter the petitioner filed Civil Application No. 2697/05 seeking direction that his termination pursuant to order passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee be set aside. The said application was filed 2 on 12.4.2005. Along with the application, the petitioner also submitted an undertaking that the petitioner shall not claim any benefit in future as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe in case the services of the petitioner are protected. The said application was withdrawn by the petitioner and by order dated 25.4.2005 this Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the application. According to Mr. S.R. Narnaware, learned Advocate for petitioner, the Civil Application No. 2697/05 filed by the petitioner was a conditional one and as such, the petitioner is entitled to seek protection by filing the present petition. We are not impressed with the submission made by Mr. Narnaware. The petitioner having filed application seeking protection and having withdrawn the same unconditionally, he is not entitled to file separate petition for seeking protection of service. Mr. S.R. Narnaware, learned Advocate for petitioner, sought leave to address us on merits. Since we are not inclined to entertain this petition, in view of the order dated 25.4.2005, we do not deem it necessary to permit Mr. Narnaware to address us on merits. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. J.