Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 25.02.2004 passed by the School Tribunal at Chandrapur, dismissing the Appeal No. 39 of 2003 filed by the petitioner challenging his termination from service by an order dated 30.06.2003. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the petitioner has failed to establish that he was appointed on 12.07.1997 in a permanent vacancy on probation for a period of two years and thereafter he acquired confirmation in service prior to cut off date on 15.06.1995. It is held that the petitioner is not entitled to protection in service upon invalidation of his caste claim by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee on 30.04.2002 for Halba Scheduled Tribe Category. 2. The facts of the case are stated as under; By an order dated 12.07.1992, the petitioner was appointed as Attendant in Class-IV post in the School run by the respondent Society. This appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 28.03.1995 for a period of one session from 14.03.1995 in the scale of Rs.750-950/-. The petitioner was thereafter continued in service and by an order dated 24.03.1996 approval was granted by the Education Officer for a period of two years from 26.06.1995. 3. Since the appointment of the petitioner as Attendant in Class-IV service was in the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, made on the basis of caste certificate dated 02.09.1988 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Lakhandur, it was subject to production of caste validity certificate from the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the said Committee”). The caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated by an order dated 30.04.2002. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3166 of 2002 before this Court claiming protection in service on the basis of Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995. This petition was disposed of on 10.04.2003 by an order as under; "Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as an Attendant in respondent No.2 School on the basis of caste claim of "Koshti". The petitioner's case was sent for verification and the Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the Caste Certificate of the petitioner. This order of the scrutiny committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner has not been challenged by this petition. The petitioner was appointed as an Attendant in respondent No.2 School on the basis of caste claim of "Koshti". The petitioner's case was sent for verification and the Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the Caste Certificate of the petitioner. This order of the scrutiny committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner has not been challenged by this petition. The petitioner, however, seeks protection of service under various Government Resolution including Resolutions dated 15.06.1995, 24.07.1998 and subsequent Resolution dated 20th March, 2002. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner may make an appropriate representation to the management for protection under the said Government Resolutions. This representation be filed within a period of four weeks. In case, such representation is made, the management shall take appropriate decision in respect of the same in accordance with law, keeping into account the Government Resolutions in question within a period of one month. If the representation is filed, as stated above, the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated till the decision of his representation by the management. The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms." 4. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 02.05.2003 for grant of protection in service on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995. The claim was rejected by an order dated 16.06.2003, holding that the appointment of the petitioner was finalized on 26.06.1995 as per order passed by the Education Officer and therefore, the protection granted by the Govt. Resolution dated 15.06.1995 was not available. This decision was the subject matter of challenge before the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 39 of 2003, which has been dismissed. 5. It is not the finding recorded either by the said Committee or by the respondent Management or any of the Authorities that the petitioner obtained the employment on 12.07.1993 by producing a false caste certificate. It is not the finding that the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate on 02.09.1988 certifying that the petitioner belongs to Halba – Scheduled Tribe Category was obtained by practicing fraud, misrepresentation or by suppression of material facts. Undisputedly, the appointment of the petitioner was in the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category and the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim so as to get the validity certificate from the said Committee. Undisputedly, the appointment of the petitioner was in the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category and the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim so as to get the validity certificate from the said Committee. The petitioner was initially appointed on 12.07.1993 in a clear and permanent vacancy and initially approval to his appointment was granted on 14.03.1995. Therefore, he was entitled to protection as per Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995 in service. Undisputedly, on the basis of the findings recorded by the said Committee, the caste of the petitioner was Koshti, which was included in Special Backward Class category in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995. 6. The controversy involved is covered by the latest decision of the Full bench in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone vrs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 . The relevant portion in Paragraph No.65 of the said decision being relevant is reproduced below. 65. The factual position to which the law laid down is to be applied, is stated as under: (a) Before coming into force of the said Act on 18-10-2001, the appointments and promotions were made against the post reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes category (consolidatedly called as “the backward class category”) merely on the basis of the production of the Caste Certificates issued by the Competent Authorities with or without the condition of producing a caste validity certificate. (b) The decision in Madhuri Patil's case was delivered by the Apex Court on 2-9-1994, and by issuing the Government Resolutions dated 15-6-1995 and 30-6-2004, all the appointments and promotions made up to 15-6-1995 against a post reserved for backward class category are protected and such appointments and promotions cannot be cancelled. (c) ......... (b) The decision in Madhuri Patil's case was delivered by the Apex Court on 2-9-1994, and by issuing the Government Resolutions dated 15-6-1995 and 30-6-2004, all the appointments and promotions made up to 15-6-1995 against a post reserved for backward class category are protected and such appointments and promotions cannot be cancelled. (c) ......... (d) In terms of the decision in Milind's case, all the appointments that have become final up to 28-11-2000 stand protected subject to the conditions as under: (i) that upon verification by the Scrutiny Committee, the Caste Certificate produced o secure an appointment, is not found to be false or fraudulent, (ii) that the appointee shall not take any advantage in terms of promotion or otherwise after 28-11-2000 solely on the basis of his claim as a candidate belonging to any of the backward class categories in respect of which his claim is invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, and (iii) that it shall be permissible for the Competent Authority to withdraw the benefits or promotions obtained after 28-11-2000 as a candidate belonging to backward class category for which the claim has been rejected. 7. In view of the factual position narrated above and the law laid down by the Full Bench that mere invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee would not entail the consequences of withdrawal of benefits or discharge from the employment or cancellation of appointment that have become final prior to the decision in Milind's case on 28.11.2000, the petitioner is entitled to protection in service and the School Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in dismissing the appeal. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 25.02.2004 passed by the School Tribunal, dismissing Appeal No. 39 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. Appeal No. 39 of 2003 filed by the petitioner is allowed and the following order is passed. [i] The termination of the petitioner from service by an order dated 30.06.2003 and 16.06.2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. [ii] The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith on the post of Attendant in Class-IV category in the school run by the respondent with continuity in service without any backwages. [iii] The petitioner is entitled to protection in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995 and also the decision of this case in the case of Arun Sonone vrs. [iii] The petitioner is entitled to protection in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995 and also the decision of this case in the case of Arun Sonone vrs. State, cited supra. [iv] The petitioner shall not claim any benefit available to the candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category. [v] The petitioner to produce the caste certificate showing that he belongs to Special Backward Class category of “Koshti” within a period of two weeks before the Management, which shall be processed by the Management for obtaining validity certificate. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No orders as to cost.