( 1 ) THE respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 6th June, 1995. His name was recommended by the Staff Selection commission. He was appointed against a post reserved for Scheduled tribe. In clause 20 of the letter of appointment issued to the respondent, it was specifically stated that the appointment was provisional and was subject to the caste/tribe certificate verification through proper channels and if it was found to be false, the services would be liable to be terminated without assigning any reason. Along with his application, the respondent had submitted a certificate dated 23rd August, 1988, issued by the Executive Magistrate, Bhandara, claiming that he belongs to Halba, Scheduled Tribe. The respondent was confirmed in service on 8th September, 1998. The department, vide its letter dated 9th August, 1995, forwarded the caste certificate to the Executive Magistrate, Bhandara, for verification. The Executive magistrate vide his reply dated 5th September, 1995, advised the petitioners to forward the original certificate to the Scheduled Tribe caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur. On 17th October, 1995, the certificate was forwarded to the said Committee. The Committee conducted its investigations and, vide their letter dated 27th July, 2000, called for some more documents for verification, which were sent. Vide their letter dated 10th January, 2001, the respondent was directed to appear before the Scrutiny Committee with all original documents. The department, vide their letter dated 4th August, 2001, had asked the respondent to produce the original documents. Despite such notice, the respondent did not submit the original certificate and produced a certificate dated 20th September, 2001, issued by the Executive magistrate, Bhandara. Vide letter dated 22nd October, 2001, again the respondent was informed that certificate dated 20th September, 2001, was not acceptable and he was directed to again appear before the scrutiny Committee with original documents. Because of the uncooperative attitude of the respondent and the fact that the original certificate was not produced, the Scrutiny Committee, vide its order dated 17th July, 2004, confiscated the caste certificate dated 23rd august, 1988, which was produced by the respondent at the time of his appointment. In furtherance to the recommendation of the Scrutiny committee and confiscation of the caste certificate, vide order dated 25th August, 2004, the services of the respondent were terminated with immediate effect in terms of clause 20 of the appointment letter. Aggrieved from this order, the respondent filed an application, being original Application No. 612/2004, before the Central Administrative tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 20th april, 2006. While setting aside the order of termination, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent, however, without back wages.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tribunal, the Union of India has challenged the correctness of the said order in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE facts in the present case are hardly in controversy. The tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of state of Maharashtra vs. Milind Katware and others, AIR 2001 SC 393, held that the respondent was entitled to the relief prayed for. It will be useful to notice at the very outset that, as noticed even by the Tribunal, the Supreme Court in Milind's case had framed two questions and while answering them, it was categorically held that the Scheduled tribe Order must be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. It was further held that it was not open to the State Government or the Courts or Tribunals or any other authority