JUDGMENT : Swapna Joshi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent no. 2 to protect the services of the petitioner, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, in the case of Arun Sonone v. State of Maharashtra. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Prishad, Yavatmal vide appointment order, dated 29.06.1995. The petitioner claimed to belong to 'Dhoba' Scheduling Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee, for verification. However, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the order dated 23.08.2016. The petitioner is simply seeked the protection of his services from the respondent nos.2 to 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.R. Narnaware, contended that the services of the petitioner need to be protected, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, in the case of Arun Sonone v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. Page 457. He submitted that as per the directions in the said judgment, it is necessary that the petitioner is to be appointed before the cut off date i.e. 28.11.2000 and there should be no observation that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Dhoba' Scheduling Tribe. Shri Narnaware, the learned counsel, further submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled both these conditions. The petitioner was appointed on 20.06.1995 and caste claim of the petitioner is rejected by the Scrutiny Committee, as the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of the documents required to prove that he belongs to 'Dhoba' Scheduling Tribe as well as the affinity test. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Shri N.H. Joshi, for the respondent no.1 and Shri V.B. Bhise, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, do not dispute the settled position of law, as laid down in the judgment of the Full Bench (supra). It is fairly admitted that in the order of the Scrutiny Committee, there is no observation that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Dhoba' Scheduling Tribe. 6. It is fairly admitted that in the order of the Scrutiny Committee, there is no observation that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Dhoba' Scheduling Tribe. 6. After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the record and the judgment of the Full Bench, it appears that the services of the petitioner are required to be protected. The petitioner was admittedly appointed before the cut off date i.e. 28.11.2000. So also, there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the benefits meant for 'Dhoba' Scheduling Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated as he could not prove the same on the basis of the documents produced by him before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has fulfilled both the conditions that are required to be satisfied, while seeked the protection of the services, as per the judgment of the Full Bench. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The respondent no. 2 is directed to protect the services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher, on the condition that the petitioner should furnish an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent nos.2 to 4 that the petitioner would not claim the benefits meant for 'Dhoba' Scheduling Tribe, in future. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.