JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues raised by the petitioner in both the captioned writ-applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. By these two writ-applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a former employee of the Life Insurance Corporation, has prayed for the following reliefs in SCA No. 13640 of 2009 "A) To admit/allow the petition; B) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure "A"); C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal, to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure "A");" 3. The reliefs prayed for in SCA No. 9669 of 2011 reads as under:-- "A) To admit and allow this petition; B) To quash and set aside impugned order dated 15.4.2011 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager at Annexure "A" to the petition; C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal, to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 15.4.2011 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager (Annexure "A") to the petition;" 4. The facts of this case may be summarized as under:-- 4.1 The petitioner was appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation on the post of Clerical Assistant in the year 1982. He was appointed as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. 4.2 In the year 2003, one application in the form of a complaint was received by the Corporation that the petitioner had procured appointment in the year 1982 by furnishing a false Caste Certificate, which was issued by a City Mamlatdar. 4.3 Upon receipt of such complaint, the Corporation referred it to the Commissioner of Tribal Development, Gandhinagar. Pursuant thereto, by letter dated 17.2.2004, the City Mamlatdar issued notice to the petitioner and sought his explanation as regards the genuineness of the Caste Certificate. 4.4 The petitioner explained that his father and forefathers were from the State of Uttar Pradesh. He further explained that "Chaudharis' in the State of Uttar Pradesh are considered as members of the Scheduled Tribes. He also explained that in the Leaving Certificate, it has been stated as "Hindu-Chaudhari". 4.4 The petitioner explained that his father and forefathers were from the State of Uttar Pradesh. He further explained that "Chaudharis' in the State of Uttar Pradesh are considered as members of the Scheduled Tribes. He also explained that in the Leaving Certificate, it has been stated as "Hindu-Chaudhari". He explained that he had no idea that the "Chaudhari" of the State of U.P are not considered as the members of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Gujarat. He however, admitted that he had represented himself to be a member of the Scheduled Tribes and on the basis of the same, the Certificate was issued on 14.8.1981, which reads as under: "CASTE CERTIFICATE It is hereby certified that Shri Chaudhari Sohanveersingh, Son of Ishwarsingh.... of village....... Taluka....... District Dhikauli belongs to H. Chaudhari (Tribe) which is one of the Tribes, recognized by the Government of Gujarat as Scheduled Tribe. Place : Ahmedabad Date: 14.8.81" 4.5 It appears that the City Mamlatdar accordingly prepared a report dated 31.3.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government recorded a finding that the petitioner had procured the Caste Certificate by a false representation and the Certificate was liable to be cancelled. 4.6 The Commissioner, Scheduled Tribes, State of Gujarat, by order dated 23.11.2009, cancelled the Caste Certificate and ordered appropriate action in the matter. The Commissioner also ordered that appropriate action be taken against the Mamlatdar, who, at the relevant point of time had issued such false certificate. However, such action could not be taken as the said Mamlatdar passed away. 4.7 On the basis of the order passed by the Commissioner, cancelling the Caste Certificate, the Corporation passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner. The order of termination dated 15.4.2011 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager reads as under:-- "In the application form dated 10.9.1981 for the post of Assistant, you had mentioned your Religion and Caste as Hindu-Chaudhary (Scheduled Tribe). In support thereof you had submitted Caste Certificate bearing No. 2487/81 dated 14.8.1981 under the signature and seal of District Backward Class Social Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad District, Ahmedabad and another Caste Certificate dated 7.12.1981 issued under signature and Seal of City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad. Your aforesaid application for the post of Assistant was therefore considered under reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. In support thereof you had submitted Caste Certificate bearing No. 2487/81 dated 14.8.1981 under the signature and seal of District Backward Class Social Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad District, Ahmedabad and another Caste Certificate dated 7.12.1981 issued under signature and Seal of City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad. Your aforesaid application for the post of Assistant was therefore considered under reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. You were appointed as a Trainee Assistant on the basis of the above Caste Certificate w.e.f 11.1.1982 under reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. Further you were selected for the post of M.P.O and posted at our CBO-5/842, Ahmedabad w.e.f. 20.10.1994. We have now received Order of Commissioner of Scheduled Tribe Development, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar vide their correspondence ref No. AVI/tas/o/No.1125/2009-10/7722 to 7728 dated 23.11.2009, that Schedule Tribe Certificate No. 2487/81 (dated 14.8.1981) issued by the District Backward Class Social Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad, District Ahmedabad in the name of Shri Sohanvirsinh Ishwarsinh Chaudhary (District Dhikauli) at present at 43-B, Pavitranagar, Opp: Cadila Laboratory, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad is cancelled. Keeping in view aforesaid order of Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe Development, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar dated 23.11.2009, we have concluded that you have secured employment by producing False and Invalid Caste Certificate. In view of this, in terms of provisions of Section 39(4)(ii) of LIC of India (staff) Regulations, 1960, I am satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in this Regulation. Therefore, your services in the Corporation stands terminated with immediate effect." Thus, SCA No. 13640/09 is with respect to the cancellation of the Caste Certificate, whereas SCA No. 9669 of 2011 is with regard to the order of termination passed by the Corporation. 4.8. It appears that in SCA No. 13640/09, the following order was passed on 22.12.2009. "Rule. Interim relief in terms of para 19(c) is granted on condition that the petitioner will apply for Voluntary Retirement Scheme before the concerned authority and will not claim any other benefits in future. However, as the petitioner has rendered service for more than 27 years, he will be entitled for the benefits as is available to all the employees. Direct service is permitted." 4.9 The petitioner did apply for voluntary retirement, but the request was declined by letter dated 15.5.2010 informing that he being a P.F opted employee, was not eligible for the VRS under the Regulations of the Corporation. 5. Mr. Direct service is permitted." 4.9 The petitioner did apply for voluntary retirement, but the request was declined by letter dated 15.5.2010 informing that he being a P.F opted employee, was not eligible for the VRS under the Regulations of the Corporation. 5. Mr. Chhaya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that his client worked from 1981 to 2003 without any complaint and with all sincerity. He submitted that a disgruntled person filed a complaint in the year 2003 regarding the Caste Certificate, which was issued in favour of his client in 1981 and which was produced by him before the Corporation at the time of his appointment. Mr. Chhaya submitted that it is no doubt true that the Chaudharies of the State of Uttar Pradesh are not treated as members of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Gujarat. He submitted that the case in hand is not one of false representation, but of misunderstanding on the part of his client. He submitted that his client genuinely believed that he being a Chaudhari would fall within the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Gujarat. He submitted that the petitioner had no idea that in the State of Gujarat, only the Chaudharies of Surat and Valsad Districts are treated as members of the Scheduled Tribes. He submitted that a long service tenure of more than 25 years has gone in vain as the petitioner will not be entitled to receive his retiral dues. Mr. Chhaya submitted that the case deserves to be considered sympathetically. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Clerk, the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation vehemently opposed both the writ-applications and submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the Committee and the order passed by the Commissioner, the Corporation was left with no other option but to terminate the services of the petitioner. Mr. Clerk submitted that once it is found that the appointment was procured on the basis of a false Caste Certificate, the appointment would be termed as void-ab-initio. Mr. Clerk pointed out that the Corporation would be paying the following to the petitioner towards his terminal benefits:-- 1. Own contribution of PF with interest Rs. 6,44,746 2. GSLI (Saving portion plus interest) Rs. 71,940 3. Broken period of salary Rs. 21,097 7. Mr. Clerk pointed out that the Corporation would be paying the following to the petitioner towards his terminal benefits:-- 1. Own contribution of PF with interest Rs. 6,44,746 2. GSLI (Saving portion plus interest) Rs. 71,940 3. Broken period of salary Rs. 21,097 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for in the two writ-applications. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed in 1982 and the issue as regards the genuineness of the Caste Certificate came to be raised for the first time in the year 2003, I thought fit to call for the original file from the State Government. While perusing the original file, I found one statement of the petitioner recorded by the authorities duly signed by him and which is not in dispute. The plain reading of the statement would indicate that the same is more or less in the nature of a confession. In the statement, he has made himself very clear that he should not have represented before the Mamlatdar that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribes. Of course, an attempt was made to submit that at the relevant point of time, there was some confusion about the status of the petitioner. 9. The first precedent on the issue in hand is that of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 , wherein the Supreme Court laid down the procedure for the issuance of social status certificate, its scrutiny and approval. I may quote below the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 13 to 16 as under:-- "13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant 10. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post. 14. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post. 14. Since this procedure could be fair and just and shorten the undue delay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false social status or further continuance therein, every State concerned should endeavour to give effect to it and see that the constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward classes, as the case may be are not defeated by unscrupulous persons. 15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts. 16. Whether appellants are entitled to their further continuance in the studies is the further question. Often the plea of equities or promissory estoppel would be put forth for continuance and completion of further course of studies and usually would be found favour with the courts. The courts have constitutional duty and responsibility, in exercise of the power of its judicial review, to see that constitutional goals set down in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the Constitution, are achieved. A party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands. He who comes to the court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor the court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands. He who comes to the court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor the court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. There is no estoppel as no promise of the social status is made by the State when a false plea was put forth for the social status recognised and declared by the Presidential Order under the Constitution as amended by the SC & ST (Amendment) Act, 1976, which is later found to be false. Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel or equity have no application. When it is found to be a case of fraud played by the concerned, no sympathy and equitable considerations can come to his rescue. Nor the plea of estoppel is germane to the beneficial constitutional concessions and opportunities given to the genuine tribes or castes. Courts would be circumspect and vary in considering such cases." 10. In one of the recent pronouncements in the case of Shalini v. New English High School Association (Civil Appeal No. 10997 of 2013 decided on 12.12.2013), the Supreme Court, after review of all its earlier decisions, has explained in details as regards the approach of the Court in this type of matters. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 2 to 10 as under:-- "[2] In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2004 2 SCC 105 , this Court found that the caste certificate procured by the Appellant was false ab initio. It repelled the argument that a fresh notice should have been issued in compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as a prelude to the imposition of any punishment postulated by that provision, on the premise that the appointment itself was illegal and void, thereby disentitling the Appellant from Constitutional protection. This Court also rejected the plea that since the Appellant had put in 27 years of service the order of dismissal should be converted to compulsory retirement or removal from service so that pensionary benefits could be availed of. The question which immediately begs to be cogitated upon is whether these harsh consequences should nevertheless ensue and obtain even if no fraud, mendacity or manipulation is ascribable to the person who has claimed and enjoyed Scheduled Caste advantages. The question which immediately begs to be cogitated upon is whether these harsh consequences should nevertheless ensue and obtain even if no fraud, mendacity or manipulation is ascribable to the person who has claimed and enjoyed Scheduled Caste advantages. [3] This slant in the situation arose in State of Maharashtra v. Om Raj, 2007 14 SCC 488 whereby several appeals came to be decided simply on the basis of Milind, the gist of which was that protection so far as the benefit then claimed on the strength of being Koshtis would be preserved, but the incumbent would not be entitled to any further benefit in the future. To remove confusion, State of Maharashtra v. Viswanath [C.A. No. 7375 of 2000] has also been decided in Om Raj with other appeals. In Punjab National Bank v. Vilas, 2008 14 SCC 545, the employee had provided a Halba Scheduled Tribe Certificate and gained employment in 1989 which was invalidated by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee leading to the termination of the Respondent's service by an order dated 4.2.2002. Drawing from the previous decision in Milind this Court reiterated that Scheduled Tribe status had not been conferred either on Halba Koshti or Koshti but on 'Halba' alone. This Court, thus, once again protected the employment of the Respondent but clarified that he would not be entitled to claim further promotion in the Scheduled Tribe category. It was also declared that the Government Resolution dated 30.6.2004 would apply to all employment with the "government/semi-government and Boards, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations, District Councils, Cooperative Banks, government undertakings, etc." [4] Almost one year later this very question, which has led to a deluge of litigation already, received the attention of a Three- Judge Bench in Dattatray. The Respondent, claiming to belong to the Scheduled Tribe 'Halba', was appointed as Assistant Professor of Psychiatry in G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes. A verification of the Certificate of Scheduled Tribe disclosed that he did not belong to the Halba Tribe. The second challenge to this finding, before the High Court, also proved to be futile. However, on what has been held to be a misinformed reading of the Constitution Bench decision in Milind, the High Court thought it fit to protect his service. The second challenge to this finding, before the High Court, also proved to be futile. However, on what has been held to be a misinformed reading of the Constitution Bench decision in Milind, the High Court thought it fit to protect his service. The Three-Judge Bench referred to two other decisions of this Court namely Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar, 2005 7 SCC 690 and BHEL v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, 2007 5 SCC 336 and noting that the employee had falsely claimed that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe/Halba, set aside the judgment of the High Court. Whilst it permitted settlement of employee-Doctor's terminal benefits it placed an embargo on his receiving any pensionary benefits. This conclusion was arrived at by the Three-Judge Bench without noting State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje, 2007 14 SCC 481 where the impugned Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay directing the reinstatement of a person belonging to the 'Koshti' Tribe, (not even 'Koshti- Halbas') was set aside. [5] It is evident that there is a plethora of precedents on this aspect of the law, and perhaps for this reason Counsel for the parties were remiss in drawing our attention in the present proceedings to the detailed judgment in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 8 SCC 430 , in which one of us, Thakur J, had analysed as many as eleven precedents including those discussed above. After reviewing all the judgments it was held, in the facts and circumstances of that case, that since that party had not intentionally or with dishonest intent fabricated particulars of a scheduled tribe with a view to obtain an undeserved benefit in the matter of appointment, she was entitled to protection against ouster from service, but no other benefit. In view of the comprehensive yet concise consideration of case law in Solunke, any further analysis would make the present determination avoidably prolix, and therefore our endeavour will be to cull out the principles which would be relevant for deciding suchlike conundrums. These are - (a) If any person has fraudulently claimed to belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and has thereby obtained employment, he would be disentitled from continuing in employment. These are - (a) If any person has fraudulently claimed to belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and has thereby obtained employment, he would be disentitled from continuing in employment. The rigour of this conclusion has been diluted only in instances where the Court is confronted with the case of students who have already completed their studies or are on the verge of doing so, towards whom sympathy is understandably extended; (b) Where there is some confusion concerning the eligibility to the benefits flowing from Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status, such as issuance of relevant certificates to persons claiming to be 'Koshtis' or 'Halba Koshtis' under the broadband of 'Halbas', protection of employment will be available with the rider that these persons will thereafter be adjusted in the general category thereby rendering them ineligible to further benefits in the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be; (c) this benefit accrues from the decision of this Court inter alia in Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar, 2008 9 SCC 54 which was rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Realising the likely confusion in the minds of even honest persons the Resolutions/Legislation passed by the State Governments should spare some succour to this section of persons. This can be best illustrated by the fact that it was in Milind that the Constitution Bench clarified that 'Koshtis' or 'Halba-Koshtis' were not entitled to claim benefits as Scheduled Tribes and it was the 'Halbas' alone who were so entitled. A perusal of the judgment in Vilas by Sirpurkar J, as well as Solunke makes it clear that this protection is available by virtue of the decisions of this Court; it is not exclusively or necessarily predicated on any Resolution or Legislation of the State Legislature; (d) Where a Resolution or Legislation exists, its raison d'etre is that protection is justified in presenti (embargo on removal from service or from reversion) but not in futuro (embargo on promotions in the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe). [6] A reading of the impugned Judgment requires us to clarify an important aspect of the doctrine of precedence. Dattatray is the only Three-Judge Bench decision, and therefore indisputably holds pre-eminence. However, by that time several decisions had already been rendered by Two-Judge Benches some of which have already been discussed above. [6] A reading of the impugned Judgment requires us to clarify an important aspect of the doctrine of precedence. Dattatray is the only Three-Judge Bench decision, and therefore indisputably holds pre-eminence. However, by that time several decisions had already been rendered by Two-Judge Benches some of which have already been discussed above. It was within the competence of Dattatray Bench to overrule the other Two-Judge Benches. Despite the fact that it has not done so the per incuriam principle would not apply to the decision because it was a larger Bench. However, no presumption can be drawn that the Dattatray Three-Judge Bench decision was of the opinion that the earlier Two-Judge Bench decisions had articulated an incorrect interpretation of the law. That being so, the Two-Judge Bench views may still be relied upon so long as the ratio of Dattatray is not directly in conflict with their ratios. It is therefore imperative to distill the ratio of Dattatray, which we have already discussed in some detail. We need only reiterate therefore that the Three-Judge Bench was perceptibly incensed with the falsity of the claim of the employee to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe status. That was not a case where a legitimate claim of consanguinity to a 'Halba Koshti', 'Koshti' or 'Gadwal Koshti' etc. had been made, which was at the inception point considered to be eligible to beneficial treatment admissible to Scheduled Tribes, later to be reversed by the Constitution Bench decision in Milind and declared to be the entitlement of Halbas only. It is not the intent of law to punish an innocent person and subject him to extremely harsh treatment. That is why this Court has devised and consistently followed that taxation statutes, which almost always work to the pecuniary detriment of the assessee, must be interpreted in favour of the assessee. Therefore, as we see it, on one bank of the Rubicon are the cases of dishonest and mendacious persons who have deliberately claimed consanguinity with Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes etc. whereas on the other bank are those marooned persons who honestly and correctly claimed to belong to a particular Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe but were later on found by the relevant Authority not to fall within the particular group envisaged for protected treatment. In the former group, persons would justifiably deserve the immediate cessation of all benefits, including termination of services. whereas on the other bank are those marooned persons who honestly and correctly claimed to belong to a particular Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe but were later on found by the relevant Authority not to fall within the particular group envisaged for protected treatment. In the former group, persons would justifiably deserve the immediate cessation of all benefits, including termination of services. In the latter, after the removal of the nebulousness and uncertainty, while the services or benefits already enjoyed would not be negated, they would be disentitled to claim any further or continuing benefit on the predication of belonging to the said Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. [7] We must now reflect upon the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 passed by the Government of Maharashtra. Virtually it grants status quo as regards employment inasmuch as it states that those persons who, on the basis of Caste Certificates, already stand appointed or promoted in the Government or Semi- Government, shall not be demoted or removed from service. Thereafter, 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 (for short, 2000 Act') was passed by the Legislature and received the assent of the President. Section 10 thereof reads thus: "10. Benefits secured on the basis of false Caste Certificate to be withdrawn. (1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes of Special Backward Category secures admission in any education institution against a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes, or secures any appointment in the Government, local authority or in any other company or corporation, owned or controlled by the Government or in any Government aided institution or co-operative society against a post reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred from the concerned educational institution, or as the case may be, discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith. (2) 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 person as an arrears of land revenue. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force, any Degree, Dilploma or any other educational qualification acquired by such person after securing admission in any educational institution on the basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of such Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being a member of any statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, co-operative society or any statutory body on the seat reserved for any of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backaward Category by procuring a false Caste Certificate as belonging to such Caste, Tribe or Class on such false Caste Certificate being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, and any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and the election of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively." In essence, the Section cancels with pre-emptive effect any benefit that may have been derived by a person based on a false caste certificate. Whilst "Caste Certificate" has been defined in Section 2(a)of the 2000 Act, "False Caste Certificate" has not been dealt with in the Definitions clause. There is always an element of deceitfulness, in order to derive unfair or undeserved benefit whenever a false statement or representation or stand is adopted by the person concerned. An innocent statement which later transpires to be incorrect may be seen as false in general sense would normally not attract punitive or detrimental consequences on the person making it, as it is one made by error. An untruth coupled with a dishonest intent however requires legal retribution. It appears to us that Section 10 applies in the Dattatray mould only. It was obviously for this reason that in Vilas, Sema J, was of the opinion that the 2000 Act did not apply to the facts before it whereas Sirpurkar J, after concurring with Sema J, granted protection albeit under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It appears to us that Section 10 applies in the Dattatray mould only. It was obviously for this reason that in Vilas, Sema J, was of the opinion that the 2000 Act did not apply to the facts before it whereas Sirpurkar J, after concurring with Sema J, granted protection albeit under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In Nimje another Two-Judge Bench held that Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 would continue to apply even after the passing of the 2000 Act so long as the appointment had taken place prior to 1995. There is, therefore, palpable wisdom in the Office Memorandum dated 10.8.2010 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training to the effect that "it has been decided that the persons belonging to the 'Halba Koshti/Koshti' caste who got appointment against vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of Scheduled Tribe certificates, issued to them by the competent authority, under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (as amended from time to time) relating to the State of Maharashtra and whose appointments had become final on or before 28.11.2000, shall not be affected. However, they shall not get any benefit of reservation after 28.11.2000." [8] The Appellant before us has been in service since 6.11.1981 on the strength of her claim of consanguinity to 'Halba Scheduled Tribe' duly predicated on a Certificate dated 8.7.1974 issued by the Competent Authority. Avowedly she was appointed in a vacancy earmarked against the Scheduled Tribe category. She was confirmed as Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.1.1984. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, by order dated 17.9.1989 appointed the Appellant as Assistant Head Mistress. Thereafter on 28.4.1994 she was promoted as Head Mistress by an order of even date, subject to production of Caste Validity Certificate. It is not clear when the certificate produced by the Appellant was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur for verification, but the said Committee by Order dated 20.8.2003 held it to be invalid. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench granted protection in service on the basis of Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 by his order dated 2.9.2003 in Writ Petition No. 3500 of 2003. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench granted protection in service on the basis of Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 by his order dated 2.9.2003 in Writ Petition No. 3500 of 2003. Protracted litigation thereafter ensued eventually resulting in the filing of another Writ Petition No. 4532 of 2004 in which a learned Single Judge by order dated 11.11.2009 set aside the reinstatement order passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur which came to be affirmed by the Division Bench in the impugned Order which was of the opinion that Dattatray prohibited the extension of any protection to the Appellant. Having come to that conclusion, the Division Bench did not think it necessary to consider the plethora of precedents, albeit of Two-Judge Benches where protection had in fact been granted. Be that as it may, we think that since there was no falsity in the claim of the Appellant and therefore that she cannot be viewed as having filed a 'false' Caste Certificate, the rigours of Section 10 of the 2000 Act would not apply to her case. A perusal of the Order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Committee, Nagpur shows that the Committee was satisfied that her claim to the caste of 'Gadwal Koshti' was correct but that she did not belong to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 specifically declares that the following were basically backward in social, economic and educational viewpoint and were therefore "special backward class" vide Government Resolution dated 7.12.1994: "Sr. No. Name of the Caste 1..... 2..... 3. (1) Koshti (2) Halba Koshti (3) Halba Caste (4) Sali (5) Ladkoshti (6) Gadwal Koshti (7) Deshkar (8) Salewar (9) Padmashali (10) Dwang (11) Kachi Dhande (Glass occupation) (12) Patwos (13) Satpal (14) Sade (15) Dhankoshti." [9] It requires specialised bodies such as Caste Scrutiny Committees, specialised lawyers, seasoned bureaucrats etc. to decipher which category a relatively backward, or ostracized or tribal person falls in. Can it therefore seriously be contended that a person who has honestly, in contradistinction with falsely, claimed consanguinity with a certain group which was later on found not to belong to an envisaged Scheduled Tribe but to a special backward class be visited with termination of her employment? We think that that is not the intent of the law, and certainly was not what the Three-Judge Bench was confronted with in Dattatray. We think that that is not the intent of the law, and certainly was not what the Three-Judge Bench was confronted with in Dattatray. In our opinion, therefore, the Appellant should have been debarred from any further advantage that would enure to persons belonging to the 'Halba' Tribe. [10] Accordingly, we direct reinstatement of the Appellant in service but without any back wages. With the passage of time it is possible that there may be another incumbent as Head Mistress of the Respondent No. 1-School and we think that it would not be equitable to remove such person. However, if this post falls vacant before the Appellant reaches the age of retirement or superannuation she shall be re-appointed to that post but with no further promotion as a Scheduled Tribe candidate unless she is otherwise entitled as a special backward class candidate. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The parties shall bear their respective costs. " 11. What is discernible from the above is the principles explained by the Supreme Court as regards the caste certificate. If any person fraudulently claims to belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and thereby obtains employment, he would definitely be dis-entitled from continuing. The rigor of such conclusion can be diluted only in cases of students who have already completed their studies or are on the verge of doing so. 12. Where there is some confusion concerning the eligibility to the benefits flowing from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes status, such as issuance of a caste certificate to a person claiming to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe, who in fact would fall within the category of Scheduled Tribe in one particular State but not in another State, then the protection of employment would be available with the rider that such person shall thereafter be adjusted in the general category thereby rendering him ineligible to further benefits in the category of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. 13. I take notice of not only the statement made by the petitioner before the Authority referred to in paragraph 8, but also take notice of one another statement made by him reduced into writing and duly signed by him, stating that none of his family members including his brothers and sisters at any point of time had put-forward any claim to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. In the said statement he has also made it clear that at no point of time any of the family members had applied for a Caste Certificate on the ground that they belong to the Scheduled Tribes. Thus, the overall conduct of the petitioner reflects on his culpable mental state. It also appears, prima-facie that he took undue advantage of the format of the Leaving Certificate issued by the School, which is at page 25 at Annexure "B". In the said Leaving Certificate in Clause (2), there is a reference of religion. So far as religion is concerned, it is stated as "Hindu" and so far as Caste is concerned, it is stated as "Chaudhari" giving an impression that it could be Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is possible that perhaps what weighed with the Authority was the reference of the same in the Leaving Certificate issued by the School. In the overall view of the matter, I am convinced that no case is made out by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the SCA No. 13640 of 2009 should fail and is accordingly rejected. As a result, the SCA No. 9669 of 2011 should also fail and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. It is clarified that whatever retiral dues the petitioner is otherwise entitled to, shall be paid to him at the earliest.