: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4622 OF 2009 Jalindar Malkappa Ghante ... Petitioner Vs 1. State of Maharashtra & 3 ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Masurkar, GP with Mr. V.P. Malwankar, AGP, for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 30TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri R.K. Mendadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner initially submitted that the fact that the caste certificate in question was not issued by the Tehsildar in question was not brought to the notice of the petitioner and, therefore, requested for remand of the matter. In order to see the record, we adjourned the matter and the matter was fixed for admission : 2 : today. The original papers of the Caste Scrutiny Committee are produced before us today. After the production of the record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the Petition with liberty to approach the competent authority for obtaining a caste certificate and then if he gets the caste certificate, he will approach the competent authority for validation of the said caste certificate. Thus, he now accepts that the caste certificate which was produced before the Scrutiny Committee as belonging to Mahadev Koli was not issued by the Tehsildar and that it was a false certificate on the basis of which the claim for validation was made to the Scrutiny Committee. Now he desires to take another chance by approaching the competent authority for issue of such a certificate. This chance he wants to take with the leave of the court. 3. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and that the claim for validation was made by the petitioner, being fully aware that the certificate was a false one, and also taking into consideration the fact that employment was sought with the respondent No.3-school on the basis of such a certificate and the petitioner is at present working as an Assistant Teacher in the said school, we do not desire that benefits which are conferred on the reserved categories should be exploited by persons not belonging to the said : 3 : categories in the manner in which the petitioner has exploited them. We further want to discourage such type of practice which are repeatedly noticed by this court in several Petitions viz. that such certificates are obtained and when it is found that either the certificate is false or the claim made to the particular caste is incorrect, they try to improve their case. We, therefore, feel that there should be a deterrence in that regard by giving a clear signal to the persons making a false claim that such type of practice will not be entertained. We are, therefore, not in favour of accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner because if such type of submission is accepted, the same will encourage fraudulent persons to make false claims as belonging to a particular caste and claim reservation. Therefore, the request made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking liberty to apply to the competent authority for obtaining another caste certificate is hereby categorically rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though such a leave has not been granted, he wants to withdraw the Petition. The learned counsel is allowed to withdraw the Petition, but we clarify that the withdrawal of the Petition shall not operate as a withdrawal of the application to the Scrutiny Committee and the impugned judgment given by the Scrutiny Committee will be fully operative as against the petitioner. : 4 : 5. The Scrutiny Committee has already issued directions to the respondent No.4 Tahsildar to launch prosecution by filing FIR against the petitioner. We also direct the respondent No.4 to follow the directions given by the Scrutiny Committee and file FIR against the petitioner for falsely manufacturing and fabricating the caste certificate as observed by the Scrutiny Committee and as per the letter of the Tahsildar. The Scrutiny Committee as well as the Tehsildar are directed to report the steps taken by them to this court by filing a report in that regard. Even though respondent No.4 is not before us, if the respondent No.4 has appointed the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher on a reserved seat, the respondent No.4 is directed to take necessary steps to remove the petitioner from service of the respondent No.4. If the petitioner is appointed by the respondent No.4 in the open category, without giving benefit of reservation, then the services of the petitioner may not be terminated. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Sd/- (R.M. SAVANT) (S.B. MHASE, J.)