JUDGMENT ( 1. ) CLAIMING himself to be belonging to Halba Scheduled Caste, petitioner got employed as Assistant Teacher on 23/10/1986 in School Education Department, State of Madhya Pradesh on the strength of Certificate, dated 8-8-1978 issued by Tehsildar, Saunser. ( 2. ) IN the year 1997, on the basis of complaints that the petitioner docs not belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe, but is Koshti, had obtained the employment against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe, a Departmental Enquiry was instituted on 1-8-1997, which the petitioner challenged before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, vide, O.A. No. 1753/1998. The said case was transferred to this Court after the closure of State Administrative Tribunal and re-registered as W.P. No. 12759/2003. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13-7-2004, in the following terms :- "IN this petition, the petitioner has called in question the justifiability of suspension order and Departmental Enquiry (Annexure A-3), dated 1-8-1997. It is not in dispute that the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he had obtained his service on the basis of false certificate. It is submitted by Shri Sunil Choubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner that his case is covered by the decision rendered in the case of Kashi Das Limje Vs. State of M.P. and others. W.P. No. 6216/2001. Without expressing any opinion in this regard, I am inclined to direct the Disciplinary Authority to decide the matter keeping in view the aforesaid decision. It would be open to the petitioner to press the aforesaid before the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner shall be free to raise all other legal submissions. A copy of the order of Kashi Das Limje (supra), be supplied by the petitioner to the Disciplinary Authority. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of." In Kashi Das Limje Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, W.P. No. 6216/2001, decided on 1-4-2002, the issue was whether an action can be taken against an appointment on the basis of a caste certificate without taking recourse to the stipulations contained in the decision by Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 . The petition by Kashi Das Limje was disposed of with a direction that the same be decided on the basis of principle of law laid down in Milind (supra). ( 3. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 . The petition by Kashi Das Limje was disposed of with a direction that the same be decided on the basis of principle of law laid down in Milind (supra). ( 3. ) IN the case at hand in pursuance to direction by this Court, matter of the petitioner was considered by High Level Scrutiny Committee, which gave its finding on 7-10-2005, holding that the petitioner belongs to Koshti caste and is not Halba Scheduled Tribe. The Committee besides cancelling the caste certificate of Halba Tribe issued in favour of the petitioner, recommended a disciplinary action against petitioner for obtaining employment on the basis of false caste certificate. ( 4. ) CONSEQUENT whereof, a Domestic Inquiry was held against the petitioner in respect of allegation of obtaining employment against a seal reserved in favour of Scheduled Tribe on the basis of forged caste certificate. The proceedings culminated into the order of dismissal on 8-11-2005. The petitioner though challenges the dismissal order dated 8-11-2005, however, the decision by the High Level Scrutiny Committee, which cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner is not questioned and has been allowed to attain finality. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, while confining his argument on the principle of law laid down in Milind (supra), Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Vilas and another, Appeal (Civil) No. 1547/2007, and decision of this Court in W.P. No. 1306/1997, Abhay Kumar Parate Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, decided on 15-12-1997 and by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Sanjay s/o Ashok Nimje Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, W.P. No. 4026/2001, decided on 29-3-2005. As well, the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel/Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training vide office Memorandum No. 36011/2/2010-Estt. (Res), dated 10-8-2010, and another circular by State of Madhya Pradesh vide circular No. F.7-21/2011, Bhopal, dated 7-3-2011, has to submit that though found to be of 'Koshti' caste and not of Halba Scheduled Tribe, the respondents are not justified in terminating his service. It is urged that instead of terminating the service the petitioner may be treated as of Other Backward Class and may not extend the benefits as available to a member belonging to Scheduled Caste in future. It is urged that instead of terminating the service the petitioner may be treated as of Other Backward Class and may not extend the benefits as available to a member belonging to Scheduled Caste in future. It is urged that being under a bonafide belief that 'Koshti' being the sub-caste of Halba, the petitioner had been granted the caste certificate as 'Halba', which is a Scheduled Tribe. It is urged that there was no intention to commit any fraud. ( 6. ) RESPONDENTS on their turn relying upon the judgment in the case of R. Vishwanathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 , have to submit that the petitioner, despite of the fact that he is a 'Koshti' by caste obtained a certificate of 'Halba' caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe and on the basis of same got employed on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. It is urged that conduct of the petitioner thus reflects that he obtained employment on false caste certificate. It is accordingly contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the petition deserves dismissal. Considered the rival submissions. ( 7. ) IN Milind (supra), the Constitution Bench while dwelling on two questions, viz., (a) whether at all, it is permissible to hold inquiry and let in evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part or group within any tribe or tribal community, which is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950; (b) Whether "Halba-Koshti" caste is a Sub-Tribe within the meaning of Entry 19 (Halba/Halbi) of the said Scheduled Tribes Order relating to the State of Maharashtra even though it is not specifically mentioned as such ?, answered in Paragraph 36 in the following terms :- "36. IN the light of what is stated above, the following positions emerge :- (1) It is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. (2) The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. (2) The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. (3) A notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made by Parliament. IN other words, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under clause (1) of Article 342 only by Parliament by law and by no other Authority. (4) It is not open to State Governments or Courts or Tribunals or any other Authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342. (5) Deci sions of the Division Benches of this Court in Bhaiva Ram Munda Vs. Anirudh Patar and Dina Vs. Narain Singh did not lay down law correctly in stating that the inquiry was permissible and the evidence was admissible within the limitations indicated for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to be. As stated in position (1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, in the matter." And, as observed in Addl. General Manager, Human Resources, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ram Krishna Barde, (2007) 5 SCC 336 , that "the law declared by the Constitution Bench does not lay down that where a person secures an appointment by producing a false certificate, his service can be protected on his giving an undertaking that in future he will not take any advantage of being a member of the reserved category". (Paragraph 8) ( 8. ) IN Suresh Ram Krishna Barde (supra), while placing reliance on Paragraph 15 of the judgment in R. Vishwanathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala (supra), it is observed by Their Lordships, in Paragraphs 12 and 13 :- "12. IN R. Vishwanathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 , which we have referred to earlier, the case of the employee's son, who got admission in an Engineering College against a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, was also considered. State of Kerala (supra), it is observed by Their Lordships, in Paragraphs 12 and 13 :- "12. IN R. Vishwanathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 , which we have referred to earlier, the case of the employee's son, who got admission in an Engineering College against a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, was also considered. The admission in the Engineering College was obtained in 1992 and he completed the course in 1996 though under the interim order of the High Court. The appeal was decided by this Court on 7-1-2004. Placing reliance upon Paragraph 38 of the judgment in the case of Milind (supra), this Court observed that no purpose would be served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of examination already taken by the student or depriving him of the degree in case he passes the examination. It was accordingly directed that the student's result be declared and he be allowed to take his degree with the condition that he will not be treated as Scheduled Caste candidate in future either in obtaining service or for any other benefits flowing from the caste certificate obtained by him and he shall be treated to be a person belonging to general category. 13. The principle, which seems to have been followed by this Court is, that, where a person secures an appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be allowed to retain the benefit of the wrong committed by him and his services are liable to be terminated. However, where a person has got admission in a professional course like Engineering or MBBS and has successfully completed the course after studying for the prescribed period and has passed the examination, his case may, on special facts, be considered on a different footing. Normally, huge amount of public money is spent in imparting education in a Professional College and the student also acquires the necessary skill in the subjects which he has studied. The skill acquired by him can be gainfully utilized by the society. IN such cases, the Professional Degree obtained by the student may be protected though he may have got admission by producing a false caste certificate. Here again no hard and fast rule can be laid down. The skill acquired by him can be gainfully utilized by the society. IN such cases, the Professional Degree obtained by the student may be protected though he may have got admission by producing a false caste certificate. Here again no hard and fast rule can be laid down. If the falsehood of the caste certificate submitted by the student is detected within a short period of his getting admission in the Professional Course, his admission would be liable to be cancelled. However, where he has completed the course and has passed all the examinations and acquired the degree, his case may be treated on a different footing. IN such cases, only a limited relief of protection of his Professional Degree may be granted." While holding so, the termination of appointment of Suresh Ram Krishna Barde. obtained on false caste certificate was upheld. The cases of Abhay Kumar Parate (supra), since pertains to admission in educational institution is of no assistance to the petitioner. Similarly, the law as laid down by Division Bench in Sanjay s/o Ashok Nimje (supra), that on an employee giving an undertaking not to take advantage of reserve category in future, is of no consequence after the judgment by the Supreme Court in Suresh Ram Krishna Barde (supra). ( 9. ) IN Punjab National Bank Vs. Vilas (supra), it is held :- "8. The situation is no different in case of the present respondent. He also came to be appointed and/or promoted way back in the year 1989, on the basis of his caste certificate, which declared him to be Scheduled Tribe. Ultimately, it was found that since a "Koshti" does not get the status of a Scheduled Tribe, the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalided the said certificate holding that respondent was a Koshti and not a Halba. I must hasten to add that there is no finding in the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner lacked in bonafides in getting the certificate. I say that to overcome the observations in Para 21 in Sanjay Nimje's case. But, it is not a case where the respondent pleaded and proved bonafide. 9. Under such circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in relying on the observations made in Milind's case. I say that to overcome the observations in Para 21 in Sanjay Nimje's case. But, it is not a case where the respondent pleaded and proved bonafide. 9. Under such circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in relying on the observations made in Milind's case. The High Court has not referred to the judgment and order in Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 2000, decided on 12-12-2000 to which a reference has been made above. However, it is clear that the High Court was right in holding that the observations in Milind's case, apply to the case of the present respondent and he stands protected thereby. 10. If the respondent even otherwise stands protected by Milind's judgment as also the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 2000, decided on 12-12-2000, then it would be unnecessary to decide as to whether the Government Resolution, dated 15-6-1995 provides protection to the petitioner or not. The respondent, therefore, Ought to get the limited protection in terms of the judgment in C.A. No. 3375 of 2000 and no further. 11. I am in respectful agreement with my Brother in respect of Para 17 in Sanjay K. Nimje's case, wherein the contention in those paras, which were relied upon by Shri Mehta are held to be obiter. 12. IN that view, I, for the above reasons, agree with my learned Brother Sema, J., that the appeals filed by the Punjab National Bank deserve to be dismissed." ( 10. ) QUESTION is whether in the given facts of present case, the petitioner would be benefited by the judgment in Punjab National Bank Vs. Vilas (supra), wherein it is observed that the case was of bonafide mistake. To examine the same, the findings recorded by the High Level Scrutiny Committee would be necessary. ( 11. ) HIGH Level Scrutiny Committee in Paragraph 5 of its order dated 7-10-2005, records :- ( 12. ) THUS, the petitioner though belongs to Koshti caste obtained the certificate as Halba with a motive to obtain Government employment, as on the basis thereof he sought employment as Assistant Teacher in School Education Department. It was never the case of the petitioner that he is Halba Koshti. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay K. Nimje, (2007) 14 SCC 481 , it is held :- "19. It was never the case of the petitioner that he is Halba Koshti. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay K. Nimje, (2007) 14 SCC 481 , it is held :- "19. From the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee itself, it is evident that the, father of the respondent was shown in the primary school register as belonging to "Koshti" caste. They were not members of a Scheduled Tribe. They were not even "Koshti-Halbas". It may be true that an authoritative pronouncement in this behalf came for the first time in Milind, but it is not a case, where the respondent pleaded and proved bonafide. 20. The respondent was not the member of a tribe. If a person is not a member of a tribe, the question of the said tribe being a Scheduled Tribe would not arise." ( 13. ) KEEPING in view the above pronouncement of law, the office memorandum dated 10-8-2010 issued by the Govt. of India and a circular dated 7-3-2011 issued by the State Government would be of no assistance to the petitioner. The present is not a case where petitioner "pleaded and proved the bonafide". Petitioner is not Halba Koshti but found to be Koshti by the High Level Scrutiny Committee. Thus, he while posing himself to be of Halba Caste obtained the certificate, on the basis whereof obtained an appointment on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. ( 14. ) IN view whereof the decision taken by the authorities that the employment was sought on forged caste certificate cannot be faulted with. IN the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.