The central legal point established in the judgment is that caste certificates issued prior to the enactment of the Caste Certificate Act are still subject to scrutiny under the Act, and the authority to verify and scrutinize caste certificates vests in the Caste Scrutiny Committee established under the Act.

( 1 ) RULE. By consent made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, an employee of Bank of India, takes exception to the letters issued by the Bank requiring the petitioner to have his claim of belonging to ?kharia? (Scheduled Tribe) verified.

( 3 ) THE petitioner claimed to belong to Kharia, Scheduled Tribe, and had secured employment with the respondent Bank on the basis of a certificate granted to him on 04. 01. 1982. The Collector had initiated an inquiry to ascertain the correctness of petitioner's claim and came to cancel the said certificate vide order dated 19. 11. 1984. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 3504 of 1995, wherein, by judgment dated 18th December, 1997, this Court had directed Collector, Akola to decide ?genuineness and correctness? of the caste certificate issued by Executive Magistrate, Akola on 04. 01. 1982. In pursuance of this order the Collector, Akola examined the matter once again and refused to alter the order cancelling petitioner's caste certificate.

( 4 ) THIS order of the Collector dated 31st March, 1998 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1876 of 1998. The parties drew up minutes of order, in terms of which the petition was disposed of on 31. 01. 2003. The Collector was directed to decide genuineness and correctness of caste certificate dated 04. 01. 1982, issued by the Executive Magistrate, without going into question, whether the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Kharia or not| accordingly the Collector examined the caste certificate and made necessary inquiries with the officer who had issued the certificate. By his order dated 01. 01. 2004, the Collector held that the caste certificate had been issued by Shri K. G. Nirale, the then Executive magistrate, and that the certificate was genuine.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER the respondent Bank wrote to the petitioner to have his caste claim examined by producing relevant documents. The petitioner asked the respondent to accept decision of the Collector and this Court. However, the respondent reiterated that since the judgment of this Court and the order of the Collector do not decide the question whether the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe or not, the petitioner has to get his caste claim verified from the Committee. The petitioner challenged this order by Writ Petition No. 4770/2004. This petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 27th July, 2005 by following order :

"shri Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file representation to the respondent no. 3 Bank for protection of service of the petitioner in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of maharashtra V. Milind and others (2001 (1) Mh. L. J. 1) as well as decisions rendered by this Court and government Resolutions. The learned Counsel prays that direction may be given to the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation on its own merits according to law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court within a stipulated period. Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for respondent no. 3, states that if such representation is made, respondent no. 3 shall decide the same as per directions of this Court. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. If petitioner makes a representation referred to herein-above within three weeks from today, the respondent no. 3 is directed to decide the same on its own merits according to law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in this regard as early as possible and in any case not beyond the period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. In the meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status quo. "

( 6 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner applied to the respondent for protection of his service by letter dated 16. 08. 2005 which is at annexure-14. The petitioner had specifically given up his claim in respect of caste cert