JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether a co-employee of the respondent No. 1 who was working as a Field Officer with the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board can maintain an independent special leave questioning the judgment of a High Court setting aside an order of the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is the question involved herein.

3. Before, however, we advert thereto, we may notice the admitted factual matrix of the matter. Respondent No. 1 claims himself to be a member of Schedule Tribe being belonging to "Halba" tribe notified in terms of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Respondent No. 1 and his family members are highly educated. The caste of his father in the school records was shown as "Koshti" whereas the caste of his uncle was also shown as "Koshti" which was, however, later on corrected as "Halba". One of his cousins Ku. Sandhya Manohar Bhivapurkar, daughter of the uncle of the respondent No. 1, was also granted a certificate as belonging to the "Halba" community.

4. An intricate question as to whether "Koshti" is a sub-caste of "Halba" or "Halbi" came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Milind Sharad Katware and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [1987 Mh. L.J. 572]. In the said judgment, the Division Bench inter alia referred to the report of a Joint Committee headed by Dr. A.K. Chandra which had been submitted to the Parliament on 17.11.1969 to opine: (Mah LJ p. 577, para 8)

"8. ...It does appear from the report that representation sent to the Joint Committee by Halba Koshti Samaj was circulated to the members and that the Committee had visited Nagpur. However, it does not appear that either evidence is taken on the matter as has been done in the cases of several representations about other Committees or that even without that a conclusion is reached that Halba - Koshti does not form part and parcel of Tribe "Halba/Halbi". It is thus clear that the enquiries undertaken by several authorities and Courts so far and the enquiry which we are making now in these petitions do not amount to amending the list in any manner whatsoever." Various authorities and the purported custom of the Halba-Koshti had also been taken into consideration by the court to hold: "(Mah LJ p. 592, para 37)

(1) It is permissible to enquire whether any sub-division of a Tribe - though not mentioned in the Act - is a part and parcel of the Tribe mentioned therein.

(2) The decisions rendered by the Courts from time to time about Halba Koshtis being part and parcel of "Halba/Halbi" tribe are binding on the government and authorities constituted by it.

(3) The scope of enquiry in cases relating to students admissions before 8th March 1985 was limited to points mentioned in the circular dated 31st July 1981.

(4) It is impermissible to take inconsistent stand about a tribe in cases of near relatives.

(5) Circulars dated 31st July 1981 and 23rd September 1983 are valid.

(6) `Halba Koshti is a sub-division of main tribe "Halba/ Halbi" as per entry No. 19 in the Act as applied to Maharashtra.

(7) Every Koshti is not Halba Koshti." The State of Maharashtra came up in appeal before this Court thereagainst. A limited order of stay was passed directing:

"There will be no order of stay of the judgment of the High Court but subject to the condition that Halba Koshtis will be entitled to admission to the seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of High Court judgment, provided the authorities granted admission are satisfied that they or their parents had income of less than Rs. 7200/- per annum."

6. Indisputably, however, the respondent No. 1 also filed a writ petition claiming the said benefit which was marked as W.P. No. 1347 of 1988. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court following its decision in Milind Sharad Katware (supra) allowed the said writ petition by an order dated 11.08.1988 stating: "

1. This petition relates to the caste claim Halba. Petitione