The court applied the decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind to determine caste claims and the protection of appointments and benefits derived by the appellants.

ORDER :

C.A. No. 3102 of 1988

1. The challenge in this appeal is covered by a decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4.

2. In view of the aforesaid decision, the respondent, Om Raj cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe. However, if he has been admitted to any professional college pursuant to the orders made by the High Court, the same shall stand protected in the terms stated by this Court in the order stated above. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

3. However, it is made clear that if he is deriving any benefit pursuant to the order made by the High Court the same shall continue to be available to him to the advantage of being a Scheduled Tribe but no further.

C.A. No. 7375 of 2000 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6524 of 1988]

4. Leave granted.

5. The appellant having belonged to Koshti caste claimed to be included in the Scheduled Tribe of Halba and obtained an appointment as Assistant Engineer. When his appointment was sought to be terminated on the basis that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe by the Government a writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging that order which was allowed. That order is questioned in this appeal. The questions arising in this case are covered by the decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and were got to be allowed, however, the benefits derived till now shall be available to the appellant to the effect that his appointment as Assistant Engineer shall stand protected but no further. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

C.A. No. 2295 of 1986

6. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.A. No. 3102 of 1988.

C.A. No. 3200 of 1988

7. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.A. No. 7375 of 2000 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6524 of 1988].

C.A. No. 6235 of 1990

8. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.A. No. 3102 of 1988.

C.A. No. 2296 of 1986

9. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.A. No. 3102 of 1988.

C.A. No. 2661 of 1989

10. The High Court in this appeal noticed that the Scrutiny Committee had relied upon the extracts of the birth certificate describing the caste of the respondent to be Koshti and not Halba but no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to establish his case that he belongs to Halba. Having said so, the High Court proceeded to consider whether the respondent belongs to Halba tribe or not and decided the matter. That course should not have been adopted by the High Court. Hence the order made by the High Court is set aside and the matter shall stand remitted to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration after notice to all the parties. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

W.P. (C) No. 8 of 1986

11. The questions raised in this writ petition are identical to those considered by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milindand following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as stated in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind.

C.A. No. 2298 of 1986

12. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 8 of 1986.

C.A. No. 2297 of 1986

13. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.A. No. 3102 of 1988.

C.A. No. 79 of 1995

14. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.A. No. 3102 of 1988.

S.L.P. (C) No. 5228 of 1991

15. In view of the decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind this petition is dismissed.

S.L.P. (C) No. 4470 of 1986

16. In view of the order passed in C.A. No. 7375 of 2000 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6524 of 1988] this petition is dismissed.

C.A. No. 3199 of 1988

17. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.A. No. 3102 of 1988.

S.L.P. (C) No. 23061 of 1996

18. In view of the decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind this petition is dismissed.

S.L.P. (C) No. 4539 of 1997

19. In view of the decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind this petition is dismissed.

C.A. Nos. 3519-3520 of 2000

20. In these two matters the Scrut