B.R. Gavai, J.

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

2. Since the factual and legal position in all the three petitions are identical, we have heard all these matters together and are disposing of the same by this common judgment and order.

3. Though all the petitioners who have entered into their services on the basis of their claim of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. have approached this Court being aggrieved by the orders of the Scrutiny Committee, they have given up the challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee and have restricted their claim in the petition only to protection of their services.

4. The facts are not in dispute. All the petitioners claimed to be belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Their entry in the service is on the basis of their belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. Their claims came to be referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee which have been invalidated. The petitioners have now restricted their claim to protection of services on the basis of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra .vs. Milind and others reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 and KavitaSolunke .vs. State of Maharashtra report