A.S. OKA, J.

1. As per the administrative order dated 10th July 2008 this petition was ordered to be placed before the Full Bench of this Court.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has taken an exception to the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 8th August 2007 by which the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to "Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe" has been negatived. The writ petition along with a civil application filed therein was placed before a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : D.K.Deshmukh and V.M.Kanade, JJ.). The learned Judges who constituted the Division Bench delivered separate judgments on 28th January 2008. D.K.Deshmukh, J. came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. V.M.Kanade, J. opined that the writ petition needed further consideration. In view of difference of opinion, the papers of the petition were placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and as stated earlier, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has directed that the matter be placed before the Full Bench.

3. After having perused the view expressed by the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Division Bench, the questions which are required to be considered by the Full Bench are as under:-

I. Whether an employee is entitled to protection of his employment in view of Government Resolution dated 15th June 1995 even after his caste claim on the basis of which he was appointed is found to be invalid?

II. Whether employment of such an employee can be protected in the light of the provisions of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukata Jati), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, 2000?

4. It will be necessary to refer to a decision of the Full Bench of this Court dated 7th January 2009 (Coram : S.B.Mhase, A.P.Deshpande and B.P.Varale, JJ.). The question which was decided by the Full Bench has been framed in paragraph 4 of the said decision which read thus:-

"(1) Whether the observations made or directions issued by the Supreme Court in para 36 in the case of State of Maharashtra v/s. Milind reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. (SC) 1 (para 38 SCC) is declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India which is binding on all the Courts or are the said observations made/directions issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 which only protect the petitioners in that case in the facts and circumstances therein."

After considering all the relevant decisions of the Apex Court, in paragraphs 13 and 14, the Ful Bench has held thus:-

"13. Having regard to the legal position that emerges from the above referred judgments we record the following conclusions and answer the question framed:

(1) The observations/directions issued by the Supreme Court in para 36 of the judgment in the case of State V/s Milind reported in 2001(1) Mah.L.J. SC 1 is not the `law declared by the Supreme Court' under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

(2) The said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

(3) The said observations/directions have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions.

(4) The protection, if any, to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case would depend upon the exercise of discretion by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. As the powers under Article 142 are not available to the High Court no protection can be granted by this Court even in cases relating to admissions.

14. In the result we hold that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Union of India vs. Deepak Y. Gotefode, 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 790 lays down correct position of law and we further hold, with due respect to the learned Judges, that the judgment in the case of Prashant Haribhau Khawas v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. 20