Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) Where there is some confusion concerning the eligibility to the benefits flowing from Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status, such as issuance of relevant certificates to persons claiming to be `Koshtis' or `Halba Koshtis' under the broadband of `Halbas', protection of employment will be available with the rider that these persons will thereafter be adjusted in the general category thereby rendering them ineligible to further benefits in the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be; (c ) this benefit accrues from the decision of this Court inter alia in Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar (2008) 9 SCC 54 which was rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Realising the likely confusion in the minds of even honest persons the Resolutions/Legislation passed by the State Governments should spare some succour to this section of persons. This can be best illustrated by the fact that it was in Milind that the Constitution Bench clarified that `Koshtis' or `Halba-Koshtis' were not entitled to claim benefits as Scheduled Tribes and it was the `Halbas' alone who were so entitled. A perusal of the judgment in Vilas by Sirpurkar J, as well as Solunke makes it clear that this protection is available by virtue of the decisions of this Court; it is not exclusively or necessarily predicated on any Resolution or Legislation of the State Legislature; (d) Where a Resolution or Legislation exists, its raison d'etre is that protection is justified in presenti (embargo on removal from service or from reversion) but not in futuro (embaro on promotions in the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe). 

            "Sr. No.       Name of the Caste
            1              ...................
            2              ..................

            3       (1) Koshti (2) Halba Koshti (3) Halba Caste  



                                      19                wp-3014-14 with connected matters-5.4.14sxw

(4) Sali (5) Ladkoshti (6) Gadwal Koshti (7) Deshkar (8) Salewar (9) Padmashali (10) Dwang (11) Kachi Dhande (Glass occupation) (12) Patwos (13) Satpal (14) Sade (15) Dhankoshiti."

"30 Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 430, was also a similar case where the question was whether the appellant who was a `Halba-koshti' could be treated as `Halba' for purposes of reservation and employment as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. This Court traced the history of the long drawn confusion whether a `Halba' was the same as `Halba-Koshti' and concluded that while `Halba' and `Halba-Koshti' could not be treated to be one and the same, the principle stated in Milind's case (supra) was attracted to protect even appointments that were granted by treating `Halba- Koshti' as Halba Scheduled Tribe although such extension of the expression `Halba' appearing in the Presidential Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 was not permissible.
31 In Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2006) 7 SCC 501, also dealing with a similar confusion between `Halba' and `Halba-Koshti' and applying the principle underlying in Milind's case (supra) this Court held that ouster of candidates who have obtained undeserved benefit will be justified only where the Court finds the claim to be bona fide. In State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje, (2007) 14 SCC 481 this Court held that the grant of