1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5336/2006 Smt. Geeta Vitthalrao Kurhadkar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE & R. V. MORE, JJ. Date of Reserving the Order:- 7 th September, 2007. Date of Pronouncing the Order:-25 th January, 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. 2. The petitioner by filing this petition challenges termination order issued by respondent No. 3 on 08.12.2005. The petitioner claims reinstatement in service along with protection in terms of Constitution Bench judgment in State of Maharashtra ..vs.. Milind and Ors.; 2001 (1) Mh. L. J. 1. 2 3. The petitioner contended that she was appointed as Female Warden on 29.07.1998 against a vacancy reserved for the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe. After her appointment, the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was sent for scrutiny and the respondent No. 2-Caste Scrutiny Committee, after scrutinising the claim of the petitioner and after giving her opportunity of hearing, invalidated the petitioner's caste claim as belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe. 4. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, invalidated caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe by the order dated 17.04.2000. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Writ Petition No. 6263/2002 before the Principal Bench of the Bombay High Court, challenging the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which came to be dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, filed separate petition before the Principal Bench at Mumbai being Writ Petition No. 9860/2004 seeking protection of services by virtue of the Government Resolution. This petition also came to be dismissed. Both the 3 above petitions came to be filed before Principal Bench at Mumbai and came to be dismissed. 5. The present petition is being filed before on the ground that the petitioner is presently residing at Nagpur along with her parents and, therefore, it is convenient for her to approach this Bench for reinstatement in services. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and after going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner, having approached twice to the Principal Bench of Bombay High Court, now is not entitled to approach Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. As already stated, two writ petitions, one challenging termination of the petitioner and the second asking for protection in service, filed by the petitioner were already dismissed. The petitioner could very well have asked for protection by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra ..vs.. Milind and Ors. (supra). The petitioner has not annexed the orders passed by the Principal 4 Bench of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6263/2002 and 9860/2004. Such a conduct on the part of the petitioner, in our opinion, is sheer abuse of process of law. The petitioner having filed two petitions before the Principal Bench of Bombay High Court, now cannot approach Nagpur Bench with the third petition. 7. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE kahale