Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

He claimed that he belonged to Halba, a Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of the caste certificate issued to him, he secured admission to the M.B.B.S Degree course in the year 1985-1986. The Caste Scrutiny Committee recorded a finding that he did not belong to the caste Halba which is a notified Scheduled Tribe and his caste was Koshti. This Court took a view that Halba Koshti was a sub-division of the main tribe Halba and hence, his caste claim that he belongs to Halba, a Scheduled 14 AIR 2001 SC 393 wp-8014.12,6323,5196,11518,11740n5098.13 Tribe was upheld. The said decision of this Court was challenged before the Apex Court. In Paragraph 33, the Apex Court held thus:

"6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised a short point before us. He contended that the appointment of the appellant having attained finality, could not have been set aside on the ground that Koshti-Halbas were not "Halbas" entitled to the benefit of reservation as Scheduled Tribes. Relying upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra V. Milind, it was urged by the learned counsel that the appellant was entitled to the protection of continuance in service, no matter "Halba-Koshtis" were not recognised as "Halbas" by this Court. The High Court had not, according to the learned counsel, correctly appreciated the decision of this Court in Milind case and thereby fallen in an error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant."

26. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakar s/o Rushi Nandanwar decided on 9th October 2012 makes a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke. Referring to the decision in the case of Milind Katware, in Paragraph 8 the Division Bench held thus:

"8. ..... Not only thus, even in the case of Milind Katware the Division Bench of this Court had also held and reiterated the view taken in Abhay Parate's case that Halba Koshti is sub tribe of Halba/Halbi. It was this judgment which was carried by the State in appeal and for the first time i.e on 28.11.2000 the controversy was put to rest when the Constitution Bench in unequivocal terms held that Halba Koshtis are not included in entry Halba of Scheduled Tribes and as such are not entitled to the benefits as Scheduled Tribe. It can thus be clearly seen that the legal position pertaining to Halba Koshti in the Vidarbha Region from 1984 till 2001 on the basis of the judgment in the case of Abhay Parate was that the Halba Koshtis are included in Halba/Halbi Scheduled Tribe. It is thus clear that wp-8014.12,6323,5196,11518,11740n5098.13 taking into consideration these peculiar facts and circumstances, the Apex Court had protected the appointments/admissions that had become final. No doubt that there have been divergent views express by the Apex Court, in some matters it has been held that the protection is applicable to appointment, while in some others it has been held that it is not applicable to appointments."

(emphasis added) wp-8014.12,6323,5196,11518,11740n5098.13 The ratio of the decision in the case of Kavita Solunke is set out in Paragraph 12. The decision in the case of Kavita Solunke applies only in the case of those who secured employment on a seat reserved for Halba, a Scheduled Tribe and whose caste certificates were cancelled after their appointments had become final. The directions in the case of Kavita Solunke are confined only to the aforesaid limited cases of those who were claiming to be Koshtis or Halba Koshtis whose appointments had became final as on 28 th November 2000. Moreover, the directions apply only when the caste claim is neither fraudulent or fabricated. After coming into force of the said Act, the consequences provided in Section 10 of the said Act shall follow and a claim for protection of the employment on the ground that the caste claim was not fraudulent or fabricated will not be available in case of appointments made after coming into force of the said Act. The case of A.P. Ramtekkar is decided in the facts of the case. The direction in the case of Dattu relied upon in the said case is in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It does not notice that the decision in the case of Kavita Solunke is confined to those who were claiming to be Halbas. Hence, it is not a binding precedent.