:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.3279 OF 2004 NO.3279 OF 2004 NO.3279 OF 2004 Surendra Damodar Kondurwar ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Ms.P.V.Thorat i/b.Ms.V.H.Thorat for petitioner. Mr.V.A.Sonpal, AGP for respondent-State. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 13TH APRIL,2009 : 13TH APRIL,2009 : 13TH APRIL,2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for parties. The petitioner was appointed as a "helper" in the reserved category. 2. The caste claim of the petitioner could not be established. The petition challenging order rejecting caste claim was dismissed by this Court. With the result, the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner has become final and conclusive, with the dismissal of Writ Petition filed by petitioner. 3. The appointment of the petitioner against reserved post was out come of the misrepresentation or concealment of true facts. Consequently, services of the petitioner were terminated. No fault with the action of termination could be demonstrated by the petitioner. 4. In Union of India Vs. Dattatray s/o. Namdeo Union of India Vs. Dattatray s/o. Namdeo Union of India Vs. Dattatray s/o. Namdeo Mendhekar Mendhekar Mendhekar and Ors. 2008(2) Mh.L.J.(S.C.)720 = (2008) and Ors. 2008(2) Mh.L.J.(S.C.)720 = (2008) and Ors. 2008(2) Mh.L.J.(S.C.)720 = (2008) 4 SCC 612, this Court held : SCC 612, this Court held : SCC 612, this Court held : :2: 5. Milind Sharad Katware and Ors. Vs. State Milind Sharad Katware and Ors. Vs. State Milind Sharad Katware and Ors. Vs. State of of of Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra and Ors. 1987 Mh.L.J.572 (Bom) and Ors. 1987 Mh.L.J.572 (Bom) and Ors. 1987 Mh.L.J.572 (Bom) related to a Medical College admission. The question that arose for consideration in that case was whether it was open to the State Government or Courts or other authorities to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes and in particular whether the "Halba-Koshti" was a sub-division of "Halba" Tribe. This Court held that it was not permissible to amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes by including any sub-divisions or otherwise. On facts, this Court found that the respondent therein had been admitted in medical course in ST category, more than 15 years back; that though his admission deprived a scheduled tribe student of a medical seat, the benefit of that seat could not be offered to scheduled tribe student at that distance of time even if respondent’s admission was to be annulled; and that if his admission was annulled, it will lead to depriving the services of a doctor to the society on whom the public money had already been spent. In these peculiar circumstances, this Court held that the decision will not affect the degree secured by respondent or his practice as a doctor but made it clear that he could not claim to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. But the said decision has no application to a case which does not relate to an admission to an educational institution, but relates to securing employment by wrongly claiming the benefit of reservation meant for Scheduled Tribes. When a person secures employment by making a false claim regarding caste/tribe, he deprives a legitimate candidate belonging to scheduled caste/tribe, of employment. In such a situation, the proper course is to cancel the employment obtained on the basis of the false certificate so that the post may be filled up by a candidate who is entitled to the benefit of reservation." (emphasis supplied) 5. Petition is without any merit. It is liable to be dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.) V.MOHTA,J.) V.MOHTA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)