The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection provided by Government Resolutions and previous judgments to candidates appointed prior to 15/6/1995 belonging to special backward categories.

H. K. SEMA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 28-4-2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed be setting aside the order of termination dated 4- 2-2002.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are as follows.

( 4 ) THE respondent was appointed in the appellant's bank sometime in the year 1989. The respondent claimed that he belongs to Halba Scheduled Tribe and his appointment was made against a reserved post for Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, the Scheduled Tribe certificate obtained by the respondent was invalidated by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee. Pursuant to the order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the scheduled Tribe certificate, respondent's service was terminated by an order dated 4-2-2002.

( 5 ) THE High Court after considering the Government Resolution dated 30-6-2004 set aside the order of termination. I may refer to the Government resolution dated 15/6/1995 which has been reiterated in the Government resolution dated 30/6/2004. Paragraph 4 of the Government Resolution dated 15/6/1995 reads as under :

"4. The reservation given to the abovementioned 'special backward category' will remain as a backlog for direct service recruitment and promotion. The principle of creamy-layer will not apply to this category. The persons in this category who have prior to this on the basis of scheduled tribe certificate obtained admission in the Government, semi government services on promotion they should not be removed from this promotion or service. "

Corresponding paragraph 4 of Government Resolution dated 15/6/1995 was reiterated in paragraph (a) of the Government Resolution dated 30/6/2004 which reads as under :-

"a) The non tribals who have received recruitment promotion in the government/semi-Governmental services on the reserved seats for the scheduled tribes prior to 15th June, 1995, should not be removed from service or should be not be demoted. They should be shown in the constituent to which they belong. Henceforth the reservation benefits entitled to that particular constituent will be due to them and the vacated posts in this manner should be filled from the tribal category. "

Undisputedly, the appellant has not challenged the aforesaid two resolutions. It is, however, contended that the aforesaid two resolutions would not be applicable in the case of Central Government employees/nationalized bank employees. I do not agree. The order is applicable in the service of government/semi-Government and boards Municipalities, Municipal corporations, District Councils, Co-operative Banks Government Undertakings etc.

( 6 ) MR. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has referred to the decisions rendered by this Court in Bank of India and anr. vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and ors. , 2005 (4) Mh. L. J. (S. C.) 409 = (2005)7 SCC 690; LIC of India vs. Sushil, (2006)2 SCC 471 and State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and ors. , 2001 (1) Mh. L. J. (S. C.) 1 = (2001)1 SCC 4. In none of the decisions referred to by Mr. Mehta, the resolutions dated 15/6/1995 and 30/6/2004 were considered. However, in the case of State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Sanjay K. Nimje, 2007 (3) Mh. L. J. 795 = 2007 (2) SCALE 214, this Court made a reference to the Government Resolution dated 15/6/1995 in paragraph 13 of the judgment and held that since the respondent therein was appointed on 29/6/1995 the Government Resolution dated 15/6/1995 would not be applicable in his case. Mr. Mehta, however, drew our attention to the observation made by this Court in paragraph 17 of the said judgment that the Government Resolution cannot outweigh the Act passed by the Legislature. According to him, the Legislature enacted an Act 2000 and, therefore, the Government Resolution of 15/6/1995 has no application. I may point out that the observation made in paragraph 17 of the judgment is obiter dicta. No l