The court upheld the protection of appointments for employees belonging to specific Scheduled Tribes and provided for the withdrawal of benefits granted after a specific date.

B.R. GAVAI, J.:

1. The petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 5198/2009 and 2126/2010 are the employees of the Food Corporation of India. Petitioners 4 to 7 in Writ Petition No. 1512/2004 are employees of Reserve Bank of India. They have approached this Court being aggrieved with an action of the respondents in issuing show cause notice to them, as to why their services should not be terminated on the ground that they have failed to produce the documents required for referring their caste /tribe claim to the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee.

3. The facts in brief are that, all the petitioners have been appointed on various posts prior to 25 years and above. The petitioners were appointed on the basis of their claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Most of the petitioners in the above said writ petitions, claim to be belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe; some of them belong to Thakur, Dhoba and Gowari.

4. That as per the policy prevailing at the relevant time and in view of the office memorandum issued earlier, an employee seeking appointment against a post reserved for some reserved category, was required to submit his/her caste certificate. This caste certificate was thereafter required to be verified by the District Magistrate. It is the case of petitioners, that subsequently, after their appointments, their claims have been found to be valid by the District Magistrate and their services stood confirmed.

5. It appears that after the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001) came into effect, the petitioners were directed to submit their documents for referring their claims to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, established under the Act. Since the petitioners failed to supply the said documents, show cause notice came to served upon them on 25.08.2007, 17.09.2008 and 29.12.2003, calling upon them as to why their services should not be terminated on account of non production of the documents to be submitted to the Verification & Scrutiny Committee.

6. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the aforesaid Writ Petitions. Shri R.S. Pasodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Kavita Solunke vrs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921 as well as the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2000 issued by the Union of India, the services of petitioners are entitled to be protected. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioners have filed Pursis, thereby giving up their claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The learned Counsel therefore, submits that the petitions need to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the show cause notices and protecting the services of petitioners.

7. Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, vehemently opposes the petitions. He submits that the petitions challenging the show cause notices itself is not tenable in law. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitions are also liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have approached this Court even before their claims being considered by the Scrutiny Committee.

8. Shri Mishra, learned A.S.G.I. further submits that it is only in the event the caste claims of petitioners as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribes are invalidated, they would be entitled to the benefit of the office memorandum dated 10.08.2000. The learned Counsel further submits that, in the event the claims are found to be fraudulent, they would not be entitled to any benefit. It is therefore, submitted that the petitions are not tenable in law.

9. So far as