A.S. Oka, J.

1. The following question arises for consideration in these Petitions: Whether the employment of a person appointed against a post reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (for short “reserved category”) on the basis of a caste certificate can be protected after his/her caste certificate is invalidated by the Competent Caste Scrutiny Committee duly constituted under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificates Act, 2000 ( for short “the said Act”)?

FACTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASES

2. Before we advert to the legal submissions made across the bar, it will be necessary to make a reference to the factual controversy in each Petition. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8014 of 2012 was appointed on a post of fireman reserved for Schedule Tribes on the establishment of the third Respondent Municipal Corporation. He was appointed on 13th March 1996. He obtained a caste certificate from the Competent Authority on 22nd June 2000. By the order dated 7th July 2012, the caste certificate of the Petitioner was invalidated by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner has given up his claim that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo, a Scheduled Tribe, but he is claiming protection of his employment.

3. In Writ Petition No.5098 of 2013, the Petitioner was employed as a talathi on 12th April 1990 on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. By an order dated 15th February 2013, the caste claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo, a Scheduled Tribe was negatived. The Petitioner has given up his caste claim that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo, a Scheduled Tribe and he is seeking protection of his employment.

4. In Writ Petition No.6323 of 2013, the substantive prayer is for challenging the judgment and order dated 1st July 2013 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by which the caste claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to Halba, a Scheduled Tribes has been negatived and the caste certificate has been cancelled. The Petitioner is in the employment of Central Excise Department since 4th January 1996 and was confirmed on 25th November 1999. The prayer made in the alternative is for protecting the employment of the Petitioner on the basis of the decision of this Court in the case of A.P. Ramtekkar and others v. Union of India and others[2013(2) Mh.L.J. 419]. Though the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Halba, a Scheduled Tribe, is not given up, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has argued in support of the prayer made in the alternative for protection of his employment.

5. In Writ Petition No.11518 of 2012, the challenge is to the order dated 16th October 2012 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by which the caste claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo, a Scheduled Tribe has been negatived. In this case, the Petitioner is in the employment of the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) with effect from 25th June 1997. The Petitioner has not specifically given up his caste claim. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made submissions for protecting the employment of the Petitioner even assuming that the caste claim of the Petitioner is not upheld.

6. In Writ Petition No.11740 of 2012, the challenge is to the order dated 2nd November 2012 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by which the caste claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo, a Scheduled Tribe has been negatived. In this case, the Petitioner is in the employment of the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) with effect from 30th December 1999. The Petitioner has not specifically denied the caste claim. However, the learned