JUDGMENT : Anoop V. Mohta, J. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 01.07.1983 on the post of Assistant Teacher in the school run by respondent no.3 and now run by respondent no.4. The petitioner has been in service since then based on the certificate of belonging to Bhena Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was promoted in the year 2009. Respondent no.1The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur has alleged on the complaint asked the petitioner to appear before respondent no.1. Based upon the said communication, the society by communication dated 02.08.2013 asked the petitioner to get the orders from the Court to protect her services in view of the Government Circular in question. 3. On 31.07.2013, this Court issued notices to respondents for final disposal. The concerned respondent no.4-Society by affidavit dated 07.08.2013 averred as under. PARA 2: As per the recent Judgments, deliver by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Court, in various cases the petitioner is entitled for protection in service. The respondent no.4 Society on the basis of the legal opinion has decided to protect the services of the petitioner in its Managing Committee Meeting dated 06.08.2013 by passing necessary resolution. In such circumstances and in the light of the recent Judgments if this Hon’ble Court has directed the respondent No.4 to protect the services of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 is ready passed necessary order to that effect and also ready to communicate the same to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. We are inclined to observe that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of (2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921) KavitaSolunke Versus State of Maharashtra & others and judgment of this Court (Coram: Anoop V. Mohta & Z.A. Haq, JJ.) in case of Ku.VijayaDeorao Nandanwar Versus Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha, in Writ Petition No.5530 of 2012 & others, decided on 10.07.2013, the petitioner is entitled to get the protection of service on certain terms and conditions and/or on the same lines as in the case of Vijaya(Supra). Respondent no.4-Society in our view has taken insightful decision to protect the services of the petitioner by passing resolution on 06.08.2013. Such approach would definitely curtail further litigation and unnecessary expenses to all the similarly situated persons. Respondent no.4-Society in our view has taken insightful decision to protect the services of the petitioner by passing resolution on 06.08.2013. Such approach would definitely curtail further litigation and unnecessary expenses to all the similarly situated persons. Respondents should take note of the Supreme Court judgment as well as the judgment passed by this Court and should protect the service in accordance with law, however, subject to the completion of the formalities, as required. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions makes a statement that the petitioner will not claim benefit/privilege based upon the basic caste certificate hereinafter. 6. The petitioner will take steps and cooperate to get the caste certificate verified. The petitioner to file necessary documents/representation with respondent no.4-Society within two weeks. Respondent no.4-Society to forward the same within two weeks thereafter to respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 to take decision as early as possible preferably within six months. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled for protection of service but not any further caste benefit on the basis of earlier caste certificate. It is also made clear that if any benefits are granted to the petitioner after 28.11.2000 on the basis that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe, respondents are at liberty to withdraw the said benefits and to restore the position as on 28.11.2000. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed on above terms with liberty. Pursis stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.