JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J Heard Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.G. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri N. Rao, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 4. By their consent, Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner who secured employment by pointing out that he belongs to 'Balai' Scheduled Caste, is before this Court alleging that he has given up that caste claim and is claiming to belong to 'Sutar' Other Backward Class. The caste certificate accordingly has been obtained by him and as such, he should be protected in employment. Support is being taken from Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 12.02.2015 in Writ Petition No. 3729/2014 and others connected matters. Petitioner states that his caste claim as belonging to 'Sutar' Other Backward Class should be allowed to be verified expeditiously and till then he should be reinstated in employment. 3. Shri B.H. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri N. Rao, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 are opposing any intervention. They point out that having secured employment as a person belonging to 'Balai' Scheduled Caste, in terms of Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone .vrs. State of Maharashtra and ors ( 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 ), verification has to be of that claim, and if while obtaining that caste certificate or then employment, any fraud or tampering is found to be committed, the benefit of protection cannot be given. 4. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that after attending majority and in the year 1993, petitioner has secured caste certificate as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. 5. We have perused Division Bench judgment dated 12.02.2015 (supra). There the Court was not required to look into such facts. The petitioners already had obtained a certificate as belonging to Special Backward Class. Therein original certificates were as persons belonging to Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe and later on that candidate has been recognized as Special Backward Class from 15.06.1995. They opted to be treated as Other Backward Class. Observations in paragraph no.8 take note of the fact that Scrutiny Committee has found them as persons belonging to Special Backward Class. Therein original certificates were as persons belonging to Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe and later on that candidate has been recognized as Special Backward Class from 15.06.1995. They opted to be treated as Other Backward Class. Observations in paragraph no.8 take note of the fact that Scrutiny Committee has found them as persons belonging to Special Backward Class. The observations in paragraph no.7 show that the Division Bench note the issue involved and observe that controversy whether persons, who initially claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribe and subsequently give up that claim or restrict it to Special Backward Class, are entitled to protection of their services or not, did not directly fall for consideration before the Full Bench (supra). 6. In present facts it is a specific contention of respondents that earlier records of petitioner mention caste as 'Sutar' and it has been then altered to 'Balai' and caste certificate has been obtained. 7. As per the law laid down by the Full Bench, a person who has obtained caste certificate, found invalid later on, can be protected not only because he belongs to Special Backward Class recognized as such later on but, if he has not played any fraud while obtaining caste certificate and records are not found to be tampered with at his instance. Here, explanation of petitioner is his elder brother brought him to Nagpur and while admitting him in school at Nagpur, he changed caste from Sutar to Balai, by obtaining orders of education officer. 8. Correctness of this story or then whether in 1993 petitioner was under bonafide belief that he belongs to 'Balai' Scheduled Caste and was not aware of his status as 'Sutar', are all disputed questions. These questions can be answered by the Scrutiny Committee, after proper vigilance assistance. If no fraud is found to be committed by the petitioner at any point of time, then the petitioner can be given protection in employment and change of stance that he is giving up caste claim and should be recognized as Sutar, (OBC) may not be decisive in that event. 9. Here the School Tribunal reinstated the petitioner way back in the year 2011, subject to petitioner obtaining proper validity. Management thereafter had reinstated him and in 2013, instead of submitting validity he gave documents to show that he belong to 'Sutar' Other Backward Class. 9. Here the School Tribunal reinstated the petitioner way back in the year 2011, subject to petitioner obtaining proper validity. Management thereafter had reinstated him and in 2013, instead of submitting validity he gave documents to show that he belong to 'Sutar' Other Backward Class. That caste claim has been forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee. 10. In this situation, as petitioner has already been terminated, we direct respondent no.4 Committee to expedite the verification process and to find out whether any fraud was played when petitioner obtained caste certificate showing that he belongs to Balai, Scheduled Caste. Simultaneously, the Scrutiny Committee may also examine his caste claim as person belonging to 'Sutar' Other Backward Class. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one year. If answer is in favour of petitioner, we grant petitioner leave to approach this Court again and seek protection in employment. 11. With these observations and directions, we dispose of the Writ Petition. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.