R.S. MOHITE, J.:---Heard the Advocates for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ to quash an order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 31-3-2000, which is annexed at Annexure A to the petition. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ, order or direction quashing the order of reversion dated 25-2-2002 issued as a consequence of the invalidation of the petitioners caste claim and seeking a further direction to the respondents to accommodate the petitioner as belonging to special backward class in the two percent reservation provided as per the terms of the Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995.

3. This writ petition was fixed for final hearing on 14-2-2002. It was noticed that one of the points raised in this writ petition was as to whether Direction No. 5 as contained in paragraph 13 of the Apex Court judgment in the case of (Kum. Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others)1, reported in 1995(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)690 : 1994(6) S.C.C. 241, was not complied as the Police Vigilance Cell had not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the said Direction No. 5 and had not conducted the investigation in accordance with what was required to be done as per the said Direction No. 5.

4. I had noticed that this point was being raised in practically every petition being filed in this Court. Different judgments or orders passed by this Court were being cited by the Advocates who urged this point in their petitions. Several writ petitions were admitted by this Court in view of the seemingly conflicting orders/judgments passed by this Court. At some stage, I felt the need to try and reconcile all the judgments and orders if possible so that the position of law could be settled. With this aim in view, on two occasions notice had been issued on the cause list calling upon the Advocates to furnish the list of petitions to the office so that a special board could be prepared for hearing of Advocates who had filed writ petitions raising the aforesaid disputed point. As a result in all 89 writ petitions were listed on a special board before me. The present writ petition was at the head of the list and the other writ petitions were those pending at various stages after filing and were listed along with this petition to enable a wider hearing of Advocates whose petitions raised the aforesaid point, specially as the point in dispute, if decided, could have some bearing on their petitions. Accordingly, the Advocates appearing in the present petition as well as the Advocates appearing in the other listed petitions, who wished to address the Court were heard extensively on 3-4-2002 and 4-4-2002 and the judgment was then reserved.

5. The basic chronological facts of the present case are as under :

(a) On 19-2-1992, the petitioner was selected as a Junior Clerk/Typist by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission.

(b) On 11-3-1992, as a consequence of her selection, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk/Typist in a post reserved for a member of the Scheduled Tribe. It was inter alia mentioned in the appointment order that the Caste Certificate which had been submitted would be got verified from the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

(c) On 7-2-1994, the employer referred her Caste Certificate for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur.

(d) On 2-9-1994, the Supreme Court of India decided the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, therein giving guidelines relating to a more streamlined procedure which included the formation of a reconstituted Scrutiny Committee and provided for the establishment of a Police Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, by appropriate Government Resolutions (to which reference will be made at a later stage), new Scrutiny Committees were reconstituted and a Police Vigilance Cell was established, after which the case of the petitioner was referred to the Police Vigilance