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 reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921.

5. In one of the matters i.e. Writ Petition No. 2799/2012 which was clubbed along with the present petitions but for some reason has now been directed to be heard separately, we had the privilege of able assistance of Shri V.H. Kedar, the learned counsel , who was appearing on behalf of the employer in the said case. Shri Kedar, the learned counsel submits that in view of the judgment rendered at the Apex Court of a Bench consisting of three Hon’ble Judges, the protection is not available to the candidates whose claims have been invalidated, in respect of their appointment. The learned counsel submits that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Milind Katware (supra), has been considered by the Bench of Hon’ble three Judges in the case of Union of India .vs. Dattatraya reported in 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 720 wherein it has been specifically held that wherever the claim of the candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe is invalidated, the services are bound to be terminated.

6. For appreciating the rival contentions, it will be appropriate to first refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra .vs. Milind (supra). Relevant extract from paragraph 36 of said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

“36.................In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order and further or for any other constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 16372/85 and other related affairs, we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment.”

7. It can thus be clearly seen that the Apex Court has categorically made it clear that having regard to the passage of time and in the given circumstances including interim orders passed by it and other related affairs, the admissions and appointments that have become final shall remain unaffected by the said judgment.

8. It is to be noted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of AbhayParate .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 Mh.L.J. 289 had held that the Halba Koshtis were included in the entry Halba Tribe. The said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was carried to Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. The Apex Court though refused to grant leave in the matter, held that the findings recorded in the said case would be confined and applicable only to the petitioners before the High Court. The Apex Court had, however, kept the larger que