Mridula Bhatkar, J.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus or any other writs to cancel the order of his termination dated 3.2007, passed by the Respondent No.2- Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India and the letter dated 30.1.2008 issued by the respondent no.1 and seeking direction against the respondents to reinstate the petitioner.

2. Factual Matrix: The petitioner was appointed in the respondent No.-1 Central Bank on 20.3.1983 as a Clerk from the reserved category. The petitioner, at that time, was having Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority declaring him Mahadeo Koli-Schedule Tribe. After 7 years of service, the petitioner was given promotion to the Post of Junior Manager, Grade-I. However, upon reference made to the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for verification, the caste certificate of the petitioner was invalidated by the said committee vide its order dated 8.1.2007. The respondent No.2 acted upon it and issued order of termination of the petitioner on 3.2007. The petitioner filed Writ petition No.2710 of 2007 and the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to make representation to the Respondent No.1 Bank. With the result, the order of the scrutiny committee invalidating cast claim of the petitioner become final and conclusive and it remains in operation. However, the said representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.1 Bank vide its letter dated 30.1.2008. Hence, this petition. This order of rejection is a subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Submissions: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Mahadeo Koli which falls under Scheduled Tribe, reserved category and, therefore, his recruitment in the Bank was legal. Learned Counsel has further submitted that assuming that the petitioner is not Mahadeo Koli but is a simiplicitor Koli, yet the termination is illegal. The submission of the learned counsel is entirely based on the Government of Maharashtra Resolution No. BCC/ 1094/CR.68/94/16B, dated 15th June, 1995, by which the service of the person who have entered service or promoted on the basis of Cast reservation, prior to 1995 , were sought to be protected. In support of his submission, the learned advocate placed reliance on the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & another Vs. Vilas Govndrao Bokade & another in Civil Application No. 1548 of 2007.

4. Onour query, the learned Advocate of the petitioner admitted that the petitioner belongs to Koli and not Mahadeo Koli. By this GR, issued by the Government of Maharashtra, the recruitment and the promotion, if made earlier to 1995, are protected. The petitioner was appointed on 20.3.1983. He claims to be protected under this resolution. As already stated, the subject Resolution is issued by the Government of Maharashtra, where as the petitioner was working in Central Bank of India (a Central Government Undertaking. He was recruited through the Banking Service Recruitment Board in 1983.

5. The Issue: The issue thus, remains is: Whether the Resolution of the State Government is applicable to the employees of public sector undertaking of the Central Government petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit thereof?

6. Reasonings: The case of Punjab National Bank (supra), is a Division Bench Judgment of the Apex Court. The Honble Lordships constituting the Bench have given independent/separate reasonings. The appeal was dismissed for the separate reasons recorded therein. The Honble Justice Seema (as he there was) has taken a view that the resolution dated 15th June, 1995 was applicable to the service of Government/Semi Government and Boards, Municipalities, Municipal Corporation, District Councils, Co-operative Banks and government undertakings etc. The Honble justice Shirpurkar, while considerin