Judgment: Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 26.2.1996 in the reserved category on the basis of then existing caste certificate “Halba (S.T.)”. After 12 years of service, respondent no.2 referred the caste certificate of the petitioner to respondent no.1. The petitioner submitted relevant documents. The matter was duly enquired/conducted. Ultimately, by order dated 31.5.2013 the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition and challenged the impugned order of termination dated 31.5.2013 as well as invalidation of certificate and also prayed for protection of service in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kavita Solunke...Versus...State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4472 and the decision of this Court in the case of A.P. Ramtekkar and others...Versus...Union of India and others, reported in 2013 (2) Mh.L.J. 419 and the recent judgment of this Court (Coram : Anoop V. Mohta and Z.A. Haq, JJ.) dated 10.07.2013 in Writ Petition No.5530/2012 (Ku. Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar...Versus...Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha) and others. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions makes a statement that the petitioner will file an undertaking to the effect that she is giving up Scheduled Tribe privileges and all the benefits on the basis of the Scheduled Tribe certificate, which was the foundation of the service except the continuity of service. The petitioner to file undertaking accordingly within a period of two weeks. 4. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for any earlier privileges except the continuity of service. The respondents are at liberty to withdraw the benefits, if any, and restore the position as on 28.11.2000. In the present case, it is relevant to note that while invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner as “Halba”, it is observed that she belongs to “Koshti”. There are certain findings given in paragraph no.13 of the impugned order so also in paragraph no.14, referring to Section 11 (2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001) (for short, “the Act”). Paragraph nos.13 and 14 are reproduced as under. “13. Paragraph nos.13 and 14 are reproduced as under. “13. The Section 10 (1) read with Section 10 (2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001), the provision regarding the withdrawal of the benefits secured on the basis of false Caste Certificate, is made. According to the said provision, whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Tribes secures any appointment in the Government against a post reserved for such a tribe by producing a false caste certificate shall, on cancellation of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such an appointment by such a person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith. Further, any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or other financial benefit shall be recovered from such a person as arrears of land revenue. 14. Section 11 (2) of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 reads that, “No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 11 (1) (b) of the said act except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the Scrutiny Committee or by any other officer duly authorised by the Scrutiny Committee for this purpose.” In the case in hand, in our opinion the applicant has suppressed the caste entries 'Koshti' in respect of her father recorded in their primary school admission register and further, she has produced a forged and false document that is school leaving certificate in respect of her grandfather Shri Govinda which appears to be issued by the Incharge Head Mistress, Dr. Rajendraprasad Nagar Parishad Primary School, Chandrapur on 07/09/1996 and obtained the caste certificate in question on the basis false documents with a view to grab the benefits of Scheduled Tribes. Here it is pertinent to note that even the caste certificate of the applicant's father has also been obtained on the basis of the false document. Rajendraprasad Nagar Parishad Primary School, Chandrapur on 07/09/1996 and obtained the caste certificate in question on the basis false documents with a view to grab the benefits of Scheduled Tribes. Here it is pertinent to note that even the caste certificate of the applicant's father has also been obtained on the basis of the false document. Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee vide the powers vested in it under Section 11 (2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001), hereby authorises Shri Sunil D. Uikey, the Police Inspector of the Police Vigilance Cell, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli to lodge a complaint in the form of F.I.R. with the concerned Police Station against Kum Waishali Pandurang Nandanwar.” 5. We have also observed in the recent judgment of this Court (Coram : Anoop V. Mohta and Z.A. Haq, JJ.) dated10.07.2013 in Writ Petition No.5530/2012 (Ku. Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar...Versus...Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha) and others, particularly in paragraph nos.45, 46 and 47, which read thus. “45. We are not concerned with the cases whether caste certificate of Halba-Koshti is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The Court needs to consider the case separately based upon the facts and circumstances. By this process only the Department of respondent/management would be in a position to verify the genuine candidates who have valid certificates. We are also inclined to observe that in many matters where invalidation and or cancellation of caste certificate by itself cannot mean that it was false claim or false certificate. The facts and circumstances and the situation prevailing prior to 28.11.2000 just be cannot be overlooked while considering these cases. 46. The Maharashtra Act of 2001 cannot be over looked even by the High Court while extending protection even after following Milind (supra). We have dealt with the cases governing pre 28/11/2000 period. 47. It is relevant to note that in all these matters where the Courts have granted protection, that was on the foundation of the original certificate, obtained prior to 28.11.2000. The subsequent invalidation of these certificates in no way takes away their other rights based upon then existing certificates. We have dealt with the cases governing pre 28/11/2000 period. 47. It is relevant to note that in all these matters where the Courts have granted protection, that was on the foundation of the original certificate, obtained prior to 28.11.2000. The subsequent invalidation of these certificates in no way takes away their other rights based upon then existing certificates. In future they may not be able to claim the said benefit of reserved category, but the continuity of service and of related benefits based upon their service records by these orders remain intact, and cannot be taken away unless specifically directed in specific matters.” 6. In view of above, it is made very clear and again reiterated that the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law in case of fraud or misrepresentation is proved. The order/observation in this regard to the fraud and/or misrepresentation should prevail over the aspect of equality and/or protection as sought for. 7. In the present case, as noted, the respondent – Scrutiny Committee found the caste of the petitioner as “Koshti” based upon the father's certificate, stated to be false or forged document. 8. It is made clear that unless those documents and/or certificate are declared to be false or fabricated by the Scrutiny Committee itself, in our opinion, the crystallized rights of the petitioner cannot be taken away without following the due procedure of law, in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1996 and was in service till the date of termination. Therefore, keeping all the points open, we are inclined to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The petitioner is entitled for protection of service and reinstatement as Assistant Teacher in the respondent – School with continuity of service except back wages. (ii) Impugned termination order dated 31.5.2013 is quashed and set aside. (iii) It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any further caste benefits on the basis of earlier caste certificate. If the benefits are granted to the petitioner after 28.11.2000, the respondents are at liberty to withdraw the same. (iv) The petitioner to submit the caste certificate to complete the formality of service record, as early as possible, preferably within a period of nine months. Both the parties to cooperate accordingly. If the benefits are granted to the petitioner after 28.11.2000, the respondents are at liberty to withdraw the same. (iv) The petitioner to submit the caste certificate to complete the formality of service record, as early as possible, preferably within a period of nine months. Both the parties to cooperate accordingly. (v) Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to file additional documents, if any, preferably within a period of two weeks. The respondent to deal with the same in accordance with law. (vi) The respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law in case of fraud or misrepresentation is proved. (vii) It is also made clear that this order in no way prevents the concerned Officers and/or connected Department to prosecute and/or continue with the proceedings and/or enquiry so initiated and/or as directed by the Scrutiny Committee order dated 31.5.2013 in question. It must proceed in accordance with law. (viii) The writ petition is accordingly allowed with liberty to both the parties. (ix) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.