N. V. DABHOLKAR, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties, for final disposal.

This writ petition was filed for seeking threefold remedy as per prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D) which read as follows:

"B. By issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature the order dt. 26.6.2007 passed by R. No.1 Committee at Exhibit "E" negating the claim of the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

C. By issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature the order dt. 14.7.2007 passed by R.No.2, M.S.R.T.C. at Exhibit "F" terminating the services of the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

D. By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature Respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner as per the law laid down in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Vilas Bokade 2007(3) Mh. L. J. 805,"

2. Very few facts, which are undisputed, need to be quoted. Petitioner claims to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe Tadvi. He possessed a caste certificate issued to him to that effect by Executive Magistrate. Aurangabad on 24th June. 1985. In the year 1985, he was appointed as a Helper with Respondent No.2 corporation against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, Petitioner was selected as Traffic Controller in the year 1992. Petitioner instead of accepting the post of Traffic Controller accepted promotion to the post of Art "C". Thereafter, in the year 1995. he was selected as Head Mechanic and, therefore, he is working on the post of Head Mechanic after such promotion. He has joined this promotional post after cut-off date 15th June, 1995. His claim was referred for verification to the Scrutiny Committee at Nasik. Petitioner submitted documents supporting his tribe claim. Unfortunately, after following due procedure. the Scrutiny Committee arrived at a conclusion that Petitioner does not belong to S.T. Tadvi and by its order dated 26th June, 2007 it has invalidated the tribe claim. On 14th July. 2007 the services of the Petitioner were terminated by Respondent Non2. as a follow up of the fact that his tribe claim was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee and he had secured employment on a seat reserved for scheduled tribe.

3. Advocate Shri. S. M. Kulkarni for the Petitioner commenced his argument by saying that Petitioner does not press into service prayer clause (B) challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 26th June, 2007 invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner; Petitioner desires to have benefit of the protection of Government Resolution dated 15th June, 1995 and follow up Government Resolutions dated 27th May, 2002 as also 30th June. 2004 are relied upon for the purpose of claiming that Petitioners is a case fit for according benefit of the said Government Resolutions.

Admittedly, Petitioner was appointed in the year 1985. He secured his first promotion as Art "C" in the year 1992. Both these events are prior to cut-off date 15th June. 1995. By the Government Resolution dated 15th June. 1995 certain protections were accorded to certain persons whose tribe claims were not upheld. The second promotion as Head Mechanic is admittedly after the cut-off date 15th June, 1995.

4. The points to be considered by us are whether Petitioner is entitled to benefit of Government Resolution dated 15th June, 1995 and follow up Government Resolutions and. if yes, whether the promotion to the post of Head Mechanic, after cut-off date 15th June, 1995, can also be protected.

5. Since it has remained a matter of interpretation of three Government Resolutions, it is not necessary to refer to order passed by the scrutiny committee, as also a lengthy reply filed by the Corporation. We first refer to Government Resolution dated 15th June. 1995. The initial part of the Government Resolution indicates that some