JUDGMENT : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. 1. The petitioner contested the election against the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. A caste claim of the petitioner for Halba – Scheduled Tribe category was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and it has been invalidated by an order dated 16.10.2004, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2. None appears for the petitioner. With the assistance of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, we have gone through the order impugned. The petitioner filed 6 documents in support of his claim for Halba – Scheduled Tribe category. All the documents pertain to the period subsequent to 1978. The Committee records the finding the caste of the candidate is clearly recorded as 'Koshti' in the Primary School Admission Register extract obtained by the Police Vigilance Cell. The Committee also records the finding that the petitioner has failed to establish his relationship with Raju Shankarrao Dhakate and Suresh Shankarrao Dhakate, to whom caste certificates and School Leave Certificates were issued in the year 1995 and 1982 indicating the caste as Halba – Scheduled Tribe. The Committee also holds that the Police Vigilance Cell obtained the School Admission Register extract from Headmaster, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Dighori, in which the caste of the candidate and his real brother is recorded as 'Koshti'. The Committee has applied the affinity test and found that the petitioner has failed to establish that he belongs to Halba – Scheduled Tribe category. The view taken by the Committee appears to be a possible view of the matter and no interference is called for. 3. After going through the petition, we find that the petitioner is claiming protection in service on the basis of Government Resolutions dated 15.06.1995, 24.07.1998 and 04.09.2000, apart from the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vrs. Milind Katware, reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 and in Civil Appeal No. 7008 of 2001 (Sanjay Madhusudan Punekar vrs. State of Maharashtra and ors). We have already taken a view in W.P. No. 3379 of 2002 and other similar connected matter, decided on 17.07.2017, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can neither grant protection in service nor can prevent any of the consequences flowing from Section 10 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. 4. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. 4. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs.