B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination passed by their respective Employer as a consequence of invalidation of their caste claim. Though in the petitions as filed the orders passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, invalidating caste claims of the petitioners as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe, have also been impugned, the petitioners only claim protection in employment and expressly restrict their challenge only to the order of termination and have given up the claim to the status as belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe. Right to challenge order invalidating caste certificate is given up with knowledge of the judgment dated 11.3.2013 delivered in Writ Petition No. 5569 of 2012 and of fact that Respondent-Employer, as also the Caste Scrutiny Committee are opposing the grant of protection. In Writ Petition No. 5569/2012, Shri Narnaware, only had assisted this Court on behalf of similarly placed petitioner who acquiesced in order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur invalidating his caste claim as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe and had confined to seeking protection against the order of termination dated 03.11.2009, passed by Additional General Manager/Engineering LMD National Aviation Company of India Limited. The said relief has been denied and writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 11.3.2013. One of us (Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari) is, party to said judgment. Protection in service was being claimed on the basis of various judgments, particularly a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KavitaSolunke .vrs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921, and judgments of Division Bench of this Bench dated 04.10.2012 in Writ Petition No. 2162/2012 (Devidas Vitthalral Bhonde vs. Divisional Controller MSRTC, Amravati) as also dated 08.10.2012 in Writ Petition No.4013/2012 (Pramod Krushnarao Bayaskar vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors.), a judgment dated 03.10.2012 in Writ Petition No.402/2012 TarachandFukirchand Ninave .vrs. Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman and others – (2013 (1) Mah.L.J. 747) was also pressed into service for said purpose. Expressing that he could not, at that juncture, point out some relevant precedents Shri Narnaware sought to reagitate the issue only to show impact of these other judgments. Shri Marathe, learned Counsel has also towed same line.

2. It is in this background, we have heard Shri S.R. Narnaware, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. S.W. Deshpande and Shri S.M. Puranik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Scrutiny Committee in respective matters and Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of State Government. At the request of the Counsel for petitioners'. Matters are taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.

3. Shri Narnaware and Shri Marathe, respective learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners draw support from a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported at (1998) 8 SCC 275) - C.N. Rudramurthy .vrs. K.Barkathulla Khan and others, to submit that last paragraph in Constitutional Bench judgment in case of State of Maharashtra .vrs. Milind-2001 (1) Mah.L.J. 1 =(2001)1 SCC 4 , also extends protection in employment. (2008) 10 SCC 1) – Official Liquidator .vrs. Dayanand and others is pressed into service to urge that, it is not open to High Court to find out whether the said paragraph in Milind Katware’s case is under Article 142 or under Article 141. Support is also taken from judgments reported at (1992) 4 SCC 97) – Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability .vrs. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 1359 Narinder Singh .vrs. Surjit Singh, (2005) 2 SCC 73) – Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another .vrs. State of Ma