JUDGMENT : N.W. Sambre, J. Shri N.R. Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to delete respondent No.6. Leave granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard Shri N.R. Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was appointed on 26-09-1992 as an Assistant Teacher with the respondent Zilla Parishad from the Scheduled Tribe category as it is claimed by her that she belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. 4. On 5th October, 2000 respondent No.3 has terminated the services of the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce caste validity in her favour. 5. Based on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1 , Shri N.R. Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the petitioner would urge that since the appointment of the petitioner is prior to 2000, the petitioner is entitled for protection in service. 6. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to dispute the claim for want of validity, however, having regard to the law laid down in the above referred two judgments cited supra, in our opinion, a case for grant of protection of service is made out, particularly when the fact is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner is made on 29-06-1992 i.e. prior to the judgment of the Milind Katware (cited supra). 7. The order of invalidation of the tribe claim of the petitioner does not speak of the claim being false or bogus. The caste certificate was not found to be based on any false or bogus claim. The appointment of the present petitioner on 29-06-1992 was final before the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Milind cited Supra. 8. The caste certificate was not found to be based on any false or bogus claim. The appointment of the present petitioner on 29-06-1992 was final before the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Milind cited Supra. 8. In view of above undisputed factual position, the claim put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner restricting the prayer to the extent only grant of protection, in our opinion, needs to be allowed on a condition that the present petitioner shall furnish an undertaking that the petitioner or her progeny shall not claim any benefit out of the caste claim of the present petitioner as Thakur Scheduled Tribe or she shall not claim any further benefits based on her caste claim during her life time. 9. In view thereof, it is clear that the services of the present petitioner are protected subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking that the petitioner or its progeny shall not claim any benefits out of the claim that they are belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe including a service and education benefits. Such undertaking be filed before this Court within a period of six weeks from today. With the above observations, the petition is partly allowed.