-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.61 OF 1997 Sunil Krushnarao Jadhav, .. Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents Mr N. Shimpi i/b Mr P.K.Dhakephalkar, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM : V.G.PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J., & CORAM : V.G.PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J., & CORAM : V.G.PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J., & D.B.BHOSALE,J. D.B.BHOSALE,J. D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 16.11.2005. DATE : 16.11.2005. DATE : 16.11.2005. PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 29.2.1996, invalidating the certificate of the petitioner of his belonging to a particular scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community. 3. We have scrutinised the impugned order. It is based on evidence and proper appreciation thereof. No jurisdictional error is committed by the Committee. The findings arrived at are based on evidence and, therefore, cannot be termed as perverse. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is, hereby, confirmed. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. -2- 4. However, as observed by the Committee, the petitioner is entitled to protection of the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 and his services cannot be terminated only on the ground that he belonged to a caste and his certificate of belonging to that caste is invalidated. In view of the fact that the complete protection is granted to the petitioner in respect of his service, there is no need to interfere in writ jurisdiction. It is also obvious and yet we state that the petitioner shall not be, in any manner, entitled to use the certificate for any other purposes. The petition, accordingly, disposed of.