1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WP No. 2630 of 2010 Chinteshwar v. Union of Insdia and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.P. Kshirasagar, Adv for petitioner Mr S.K. Mishra, ASG for respdts 1 to 3 Coram: B. P. Dharmadhikari & A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated: 24th August 2011 1. C. A. No. 2959 of 2010 : Learned Asst. Solicitor General for respondents is opposing amendment as, according to him, issue stands concluded by the Division Bench judgment in Letters Patent Appeal between parties only and subsequent judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing to extend protection to petitioner because of judgment of Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware reported at (2001) 1 SCC 4. Mr Kshirsagar insists that first amendment should be allowed and matter should be adjourned for admission hearing. 2. The caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated and that invalidation was assailed before the learned single Judge unsuccessfully. Rejection of writ petition by learned single Judge found subject-matter of Letters Patent Appeal which was 2 also dismissed on 14.10.2003. Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. 3. Perusal of order of the learned single Judge dated 26.6.2001 reveals that a request for protection in the light of very same judgment was then made and rejected. It is, therefore, obvious that after said request for protection was considered by this Court and rejected, the same effort was made before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal has rejected it. By amendment, the office memorandum issued by the Central Government on 10th August 2010 is being press into service to claim the same relief of protection. 4. The Full Bench of this Court in Ganesh Khalale v. State of Maharashtra reported at AIR 2009 Bom 122 has already held that the said protection extended by the Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware (supra) and similar judgments, is under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In this situation, we reject the application for amendment. We see no merit in the petition. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Judge Judge joshi