1. The Petitioner belongs to Maratha caste by birth. She is married to a person belonging to Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner claims to belong to Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe by virtue of her marriage to her husband.

2. The only question for determination in this Writ Petition is whether she can claim the advantages and benefits granted to Mahadev Kolis by virtue of her marriage.

3. The Petitioner has relied upon a couple certificate which does not grant the benefits claimed by her. She has also relied upon the Government Resolutions (G. Rs) dated 19th October 1959 and 16th May 1966 encouraging inter- caste marriages under which she would be eligible to all concessions granted to that Scheduled Tribe.

4. The Petitioner was appointed Junior Assistant by Respondent No.3 on 29th December 2003 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe. She submitted documents for issue of Caste Certificate showing that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe which was not by birth but by virtue of her marriage.

5. Respondent No.3 has terminated the Petitioner's service on 12th December 2006. The Petitioner contends that the termination is void and has applied for a writ of Certiorari to set it aside.

6. The Petitioner's case is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University (1996) 3 SCC 545 in which it is held that by virtue of birth in a forward community, a person who derives an advantageous start in life and is transplanted in a Backward Class by virtue of marriage does not become eligible to the benefit of Reservation either under Act 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution. It is observed in that judgment that acquisition of the status of Scheduled Caste by voluntary mobility would amount to playing a fraud upon the Constitution and frustrate the benign constitutional policy. Accordingly as per the constitutional mandate such a person was held not entitled to the benefits of reservation in any post reserved for backward class. The Petitioner would, therefore, not be entitled to claim the post to which she was appointed. Hence she would not be entitled to challenge her termination order passed on that ground.

7. Paul's case has been followed by the Division Bench of our Court in the case of Ranjana Tukar am Sayre Vs. State of Maharashtra 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 14 in which case an order invalidating the Caste Certificate was upheld and the Petition challenging such order was dismissed.

8. Similarly in the case of Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs. Set Gangadha r a Swamy & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 244 a lady of a forward community having married a man from a Scheduled Tribe was held not eligible to contest election from a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes.

9. In view of the aforesaid settled law the G.Rs dated 19th October, 1959 and 16th May 1966 must be deemed to be impliedly set aside. The Petitioner cannot base her claim upon the said G.Rs.

10. Mr. Mendadkar on behalf of the Petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vandana Vishwanath Londhe Vs. The Stat e of Maharasht r a & Ors. In Writ Petit ion No.358 3 of 200 3. That was a case of a Maratha lady married to a man of Thakar Community, which was Scheduled Tribe. She claimed benefits of Reservation to the post to which she was appointed on 29th March 1995. Her services were terminated on 30th September 2002. After considering the ratio in Paul's case, though it was observed that the Petitioner therein was not entitled to the benefits conferred upon Thakar Community as by virtue of her birth she was not entitled to any benefits of reservation, since she was appointed in March 1995 and had put in 7 years of service without any suppression of material facts, the order of termination of her service was set aside and she was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, but without back wages and with a direction that her service record would be amended to show that she would not be entitled to benefits of reser