JUDGMENT S. B. SHUKRE, J. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought protection of their services with the establishment of respondent no. 3, which is Central Ground Water Board, Nagpur. (a) It is the contention of the petitioners that they were appointed as Lower Division Clerks against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The petitioners were granted certificates by the concerned Magistrates certifying their caste claim as belonging to Halba community. (b) The respondents by multiple communications called upon the petitioners to submit documents for the purpose of verification of their caste certificates. The petitioners submitted the documents that were available with them. It appears that respondents were not satisfied with the documents submitted and, therefore, respondents again called upon the petitioners to submit further documents. The petitioners responded by saying that they had already submitted the necessary documents that were available with them and that no other documents were available. They also gave up their claim as belonging to Halba- Scheduled Tribe and requested respondents to treat them as general category candidates. (c) Respondents, however, did not accede to the request so made by the petitioners and kept on demanding documents from the petitioners;. The petitioners also sent a notice through their lawyer to the respondents informing them that having regard to the long tenure of petitioners, the unreasonable delay in making reference to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificates and also the fact that the petitioners had already opted for being treated as belonging to general category candidates, no useful purpose would be served by referring their caste certificates for verification. The petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind & ors., reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J 1 : (2001(1) ALL MR 573 (S.C.) and also the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 206 of 2002. The respondents refused to accept the submission of the petitioners and informed them that the judgment of the Tribunal was the judgment in personam and not the judgment in rem and that the ratio of Milind's case; (2001(1) ALL MR 573 (S.C.)] (supra) was not applicable. Ultimately, the respondent no. 2 denied to the petitioners the benefit of protection of their services and even threatened them with disciplinary action for failure to submit further documents for verification of their respective caste claims. Ultimately, the respondent no. 2 denied to the petitioners the benefit of protection of their services and even threatened them with disciplinary action for failure to submit further documents for verification of their respective caste claims. Being aggrieved by this action of the respondents that the petitioners are before this Court through these writ petitions. 2. Shri Bhangde, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in Milind's case the confusion as to whether or not Halba-Koshti, is a sub-tribe of Halba/Halbi a Scheduled Tribe, has been cleared and it is held that Halba Koshtis do not fall in the category of Scheduled Tribe. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the said case that those appointments which have become final as on the date of decision of the case and which have not been vitiated by any fraud or misrepresentation or mala fides, deserve to be protected. Therefore, according to him, rejection of the request of the petitioners for protecting their appointments, which were of the years 1991, 1978, 1974 and 1978 respectively much prior to the date of decision, i.e. 28.11.2007 in Milind's case were required to be protected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in A.P. Ramtekkar & ors. v. Union of India & ors. reported in 2013 (3) Mh.L.J. 419 : [2013 (7) ALLMR 3761]. 3. Smt. S.W. Deshpande, opposing the petitions forcefully argued that the ratio in the cases of Milind as well as A.P. Ramtekkar would not be applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that the petitioners in these petitions have not submitted the necessary documents for the purpose of verification of their caste claim and. therefore, they do not deserve any protection of their service. In support, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkrishna s/o Yadavrao Binekar v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & ors rendered on 28.10.2004 in W.P. No. 953 of 2004. 4. In the case of A.P. Ramtekkar, [2013(7) ALLMR 376] supra, after following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra – 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921 : 12012 ALLSCR 2393]; State of Maharashtra v. Milind & ors. 4. In the case of A.P. Ramtekkar, [2013(7) ALLMR 376] supra, after following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra – 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921 : 12012 ALLSCR 2393]; State of Maharashtra v. Milind & ors. - 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 : [ 2001 (1) ALLMR 573 (S.C.)] and Dattu Namdeo. Thakur v. State of Maharahtra - 2012 (3) Mh.L.J. (SC) 179 : [2012 (5) ALLMR 954 (S.C.)] the Division Bench held that it would not be in the interest of justice to disturb the services of the petitioners therein who had rendered 25 years of service. The Division Bench further held that asking the petitioners to go before the Caste Scrutiny Committee would be an empty formality, when the petitioners have themselves given up their claims of belonging to Scheduled Tribe and the issue of Halba Koshtis being or not being a part of Scheduled Tribe, Halba/Halbi has been put to rest by Hon'ble Apex Court in Milind's case. In a recent case of Anil vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (W.P. No. 2685 of 2014) decided on 11.6.2014, this Bench has taken a similar view and granted benefit of protection of initial appointment to the petitioner. 5. In the present petitions, even though the petitioners were initially appointed against the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates, the petitioners during the course of their respective services have given up their claims as belonging to Halba- Scheduled Tribe. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners were appointed much earlier than the relevant date of 28.11.2007. All the petitioners have put in services for long years ranging from 32 to 16 years. There is also no material against any of the petitioners showing that they have obtained the caste certificates by means of fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, in view of the decisions in the cases of Milind, [( 2001(1) ALLMR 573 (S.C.)] Kavita Solunke, A.P. Ramtekkar, [(2013 (7) ALL MR 3761] and Anil, supra, the present petitioners deserve to be given the benefit of protection of services as regards their initial appointments. 6. No doubt, in the case of Ramkrishna Yadavrao Binekar, supra, another Division Bench of this Court refused to extend the benefit of protection of service to the petitioner therein. But the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 6. No doubt, in the case of Ramkrishna Yadavrao Binekar, supra, another Division Bench of this Court refused to extend the benefit of protection of service to the petitioner therein. But the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case the petitioner had taken the benefit of his belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe on a false representation. There is a clear cut finding given by the Division Bench in this regard. Such is not the case in any of the present petitions. We have already noticed that there is neither any material regarding practising of fraud or making of misrepresentation against the petitioners. Therefore, the said case of Ramkrishna would be of no assistance to the respondents. 7. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow these writ petitions. The writ petitions stand allowed and it is directed that the services of the petitioners are entitled to be protected. However, it is made clear that the petitioners would be treated as candidates belonging to 'Open Category'. The petitioners would not be entitled to any promotion or any other benefits on the basis of their claim of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners shall file an undertaking before this Court within four weeks that neither the petitioners nor their progeny shall claim any benefits of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Insofar as the status of the petitioners who have already superannuated is concerned, the respondents are directed to grant all retiral benefits as due to them. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.