JUDGMENT : (Per : Kum. I.K. JAIN, J.) Rule. Rules is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners caste claim came to be invalidated by respondent No.5Caste Scrutiny Committee. They are the employees of Postal Department. The question before us relates to the protection of services of petitioners. 3. Following is the chart which shows respective petitioners' joining of service, caste, continuity of service, and interim protection granted by the Court. Sr. No. Writ Petition No. Name of Petitioner Working since With Resp. No. Caste Claimed Date of invalidation of casts claim Interim Protection Granted 1 6301/15 J.N. Bhushanwar 23.10.81 4 Chhatri (ST) 8.10.15 Status quo in force 2 6302/15 S.M. Dahikar 21.10.81 4 Kawar (ST) 8.10.15 Status quo in force 3 6303/15 A.C. Gahlot 5.11.90 4 Thakur (ST) 31.10.15 Status quo in force 4 6304/15 S.S. Neware 12.11.82 4 Gond Gowari (ST) 31.10.15 Status quo in force 5 6305/15 S.M. Samarth 17.10.86 4 Kawar (ST) 8.10.15 Status quo in force 6 6306/15 M.J. Muria 23.10.89 4 Muria (ST) 31.10.15 Status quo in force 7 6307/15 P.E. Kale 27.5.92 4 Mannewar (ST) 31.10.15 Status quo in force 8 6308/15 F.M. Daduria 3.10.80 4 Kawar (ST) 8.10.15 Status quo in force 9 6309/15 J.L. Sabre 21.3.83 4 Dhangad (ST) 8.10.15 Status quo in force 4. Learned counsel for petitioners Shri R.S. Parsodkar submits that controversy is squarely covered by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others, [2000(1) SCC 4] and decision of Full Bench of this Court in Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [ 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 ]. Learned counsel submitted that appointments of petitioners had become final before 28.11.2000 and they are entitled to protection of their services. The office memorandum dated 10.8.2010 is also pressed into service to urge that petitioners, who got the appointments against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribe on the basis of certificates issued to them by the Competent Authority and whose appointments became final prior to 28.11.2000, shall not be affected. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.5 vehemently opposed the petitions and relied upon the contentions in affidavitinreply filed by respondent No.5. She submits that initially petitioners filed affidavits and secured the certificates. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.5 vehemently opposed the petitions and relied upon the contentions in affidavitinreply filed by respondent No.5. She submits that initially petitioners filed affidavits and secured the certificates. On the basis of those certificates, they secured the job and now they take uturn, which clearly indicates that they secured appointments by submitting false certificates. She further submitted that petitioners had withdrawn their claim before the Caste Scrutiny Committee at the stage of vigilance thereby depriving the Scrutiny Committee from recording finding of fraud and interpolation. The learned Government Pleader refers to paragraphs 63 and 64 of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone (supra) and urged that unless the caste claim is invalidated, petitioners would not be entitled to protection. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mrs. M.R. Chandurkar resisted the claim of petitioners. She submits that knowingly that they do not belong to caste specified in the caste certificates petitioners submitted false certificates and secured the appointments against the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. She submitted that petitioners withdrew the caste claim before the Scrutiny Committee and the act on the part of petitioners clearly demonstrates lack of bona fides in seeking appointments. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioners have admitted that they do not belong to specified caste and in such a case if protection is granted to their services, it would open the flood gate for false and frivolous claims. 7. It is not in dispute that appointments of petitioners became final before 28.11.2000. It is also not in dispute that petitioners had withdrawn their claim before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is undisputed that petitioners were appointed against the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. What is disputed is in a narrow compass which relates to protection of services in the absence of any material to show that petitioners falsely gained public employment. 8. Needless to state that protection so extended is not as of right. The facts and circumstances of each case need to be considered. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind Katware and others (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Honoruable Supreme Court held : “…... But we make it clear he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. The facts and circumstances of each case need to be considered. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind Katware and others (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Honoruable Supreme Court held : “…... But we make it clear he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP © No.16372/85 and other related affairs, we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment.” The decision in case of Milind has been referred by the Full Bench of this Court in Arun Sonone's case and in paragraphs 63 and 64 it is observed as under “ 63. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A.P. Ramtekkar's case, it is held that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind (supra), the petitioners who are Halba Koshtis can now by no stretch of imagination be held to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe. We, therefore, fail to understand the approach of the employer in compelling the petitioners to undergo the scrutiny as to whether they belong to Scheduled Tribes or not, when, as a matter of fact, they have given up their claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribes. We find that apart from it, being an empty formality, it would unnecessarily increase the workload of the Committees, which are already overburdened. No doubt, the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 1183111832/ 2013 has been dismissed in limine by the Apex Court on 1242013, holding that upon perusal of the material, we do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. However, that by itself does not prevent us from examining the said decision on merits. The dismissal of the SLP in limine would not constitute a ratio of the decision. Hence, we proceed to consider the said decision on its own merits as law laid down by the High Court. 64. However, that by itself does not prevent us from examining the said decision on merits. The dismissal of the SLP in limine would not constitute a ratio of the decision. Hence, we proceed to consider the said decision on its own merits as law laid down by the High Court. 64. We are unable to concur with the aforesaid view of the Division Bench of this Court in A.P. Ramtekkar's case, the reason being that the cases of fraudulent claims must be surfaced. The protection can be granted only after verification and scrutiny of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee. In Madhuri Patil's case, the Apex Court has observed that spurious tribes have become a threat to the genuine tribals, who are defrauding the true Scheduled Tribes to their detriment and deprivation, snatching away their benefits. The spurious and ineligible persons, who falsely gain entry in public employment and resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the enquiry by the Scrutiny Committee, are not entitled to any protection. In the words of the Apex Court in Shalini's case, the cases of dishonest and mendacious persons who have deliberately claimed consanguinity with Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, are not entitled to protection. One of the objects of the said Act, as it appears from the objects and reasons, is to provide for deterrent punishment for those, who indulge in fraudulent activities. Such objects cannot be defeated by dispensing with the enquiry and scrutiny by the Scrutiny Committee. On the contrary, it will be in furtherance of the objects of providing constitutional reservations to genuine tribals. On question No.(b) in para 55, we answer that the protection granted in Milind's case becomes available only upon invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee, it would not be merely an empty formality increasing the workload of the Committees and that the protection is not available without going through the process of Scrutiny Committee under subsection (2) of Section 6 of the said Act. It is only to this extent, we overrule partly the decision in A.P. Ramtekkar's case.” 9. It is evident that there is a plethora of precedents on the aspect of law relating to the protection of employment. Our endeavour would be to cull out the principles which would be relevant for deciding the controversy in the present writ petitions. It is only to this extent, we overrule partly the decision in A.P. Ramtekkar's case.” 9. It is evident that there is a plethora of precedents on the aspect of law relating to the protection of employment. Our endeavour would be to cull out the principles which would be relevant for deciding the controversy in the present writ petitions. They are, : (a) if any person has fraudulently claimed to belong to a Scheduled Tribe and has thereby obtained employment, he or she could be disentitled from continuing in employment, (b) when there is some confusion concerning the eligibility to the benefits flowing from Scheduled Tribe status, protection of employment will be available with the rider that such persons will thereafter be adjusted in the general category thereby rendering them ineligible to further benefits in the category of Scheduled Tribe. 10. In the present case, petitioners had withdrawn their caste claims before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The chart (supra) would show that orders by the Committee were passed after Full Bench judgment. Petitioners did submit to the jurisdiction of Scrutiny Committee. Scrutiny Committee though aware of Sections 10 and 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, 2000 (Act No.XXIII of 2001), did not proceed to complete the inquiry in the manner in which it was required to be completed in law. Though petitioners gave up caste claim, it was obligatory on the Committee to find out their bona fides, fraud, tampering etc.. The orders passed by committee would indicate that caste claims were invalidated as petitioners had withdrawn their caste claims. No finding of fraud or interpolation of documents is recorded. There is no material to attribute lack of bona fides on the part of petitioners. Merely for delaying or avoiding adjudication of caste claims, petitioners cannot be presumed to be guilty of fraud or manipulation. Employer did not issue any charge sheet to any petitioner. By the judgment, referring to Articles 14, 15 16, 32, 46, 136, 141, 142, 226, 341, 342, and 366(25) directions have been issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, [ (1994)6 SCC 241 ]. The directions so issued have been accepted as binding to all. By the judgment, referring to Articles 14, 15 16, 32, 46, 136, 141, 142, 226, 341, 342, and 366(25) directions have been issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, [ (1994)6 SCC 241 ]. The directions so issued have been accepted as binding to all. In Maharashtra, till 18.10.2001, there was no machinery to verify the caste claims. If in this fluid position the petitioners have continued in employment for long time, their efforts to remain on posts till retirement and to delay scrutiny cannot be seen as mala fide. The petitioners are willing to give up their rights whatsoever if based upon the caste on the basis of which they had claimed benefits. 11. In the light of the above and in exceptional circumstances brought on record, we find that services of petitioners need to be protected in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court (supra). Hence, we pass the following order. (i) Writ petitions are allowed. (ii) Rule is made absolute by directing the respondents to protect the services of petitioners in terms of Full Bench judgment. (iii) Each of the Petitioners shall file an undertaking to the Registry of this Court, Caste Scrutiny Committee and their employer, within a period of two weeks from today, that they or their progeny will not claim any benefit of the caste mentioned in the chart in paragraph 3 above.