B. R. GAVAI, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed Civil Application No. 6661 of 2005 for taking his undertaking on record to the effect that he does not wish to claim any benefit of belonging to Scheduled Tribe in future and for a direction that, since he was appointed on 18-6-1997, his appointment be protected and he be reinstated in service. However, taking into consideration the controversy involved in the present petition, we have taken up the present petition for final hearing.

( 2 ) THAT the petitioner claimed to be belonging to the tribe "halba", which is notified as a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Junior clerk on temporary basis vide order dated June 18, 1997 by the respondent no. 3. Appointment of the petitioner was against a post reserved for the scheduled Tribe candidate. Vide another order dated September 5, 2001, the respondent No. 3 held that the petitioner was entitled to be confirmed in service as a Junior clerk.

( 3 ) SINCE appointment of the petitioner was against a post reserved for scheduled Tribe, the claim of the petitioner, which was based on the basis of the caste Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Executive Magistrate, Arjuni morgaon, dated 22-8-1988, came to be referred by his employer to the respondent No. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee" ). The respondent No. 2-Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to the Tribe halba, but he belongs to caste "koshti" and as such, it invalidated the claim of the petitioner vide order dated September 23, 2002. The petitioner, thereafter approached this Court challenging the order passed by respondent No. 2-Committee. It appears that during pendency of the petition, the petitioners services came to be terminated vide order dated December 12, 2002. The petitioner, therefore, amended the petition so as to challenge his termination.

( 4 ) INITIALLY, vide order dated January 29, 2003, this Court granted status quo which was continued from time to time. However, vide order dated July 1, 2003, on civil applications moved by respondent No. 3, this Court clarified that since the date on which status quo was granted i. e. 29-1-2003 the petitioners services already stood terminated vide order dated 13-12-2002, there was no question of grant of protection to the petitioner and as such, there was no question of reinstatement of the petitioner.

( 5 ) BY the aforesaid Civil Application, the petitioner has filed an undertaking that he has given up his claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and that he shall hereinafter not claim any of the benefits that are available to the members of the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has restricted his claim in the present petition for protection of his services in view of the judgment of the Apex court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others, reported in 2001 (1)Mh. L. J. page 1.

( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. R. K. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. S. W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Ahirkar, A. G. P. for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

( 7 ) MR. Deshpande, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of milind Sharad Katware and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1987 Mh. LJ. 572, the "halba Kostis" in the Vidharbha region of the State of maharashtra were being treated as Scheduled Tribe for a considerable passage of time. He submits that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was delivered after taking into consideration the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dina vs. Narayan reported in 38 ELR 212 and Bhaiya Ram Munda vs, anirudh Patar reported in 1970 (2) SCC 825. The learned counsel submits that only on 28-11-2000 i. e. the date on which the judgment was delivered by the apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind