Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Rule in all the petitions. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since, common question of law arises in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by common judgment.

2. All the petitioners, in the present writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners" for the sake of brevity) claim common relief for protection of their services in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. 2001(1) Mh.LJ. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "MHind's Case" for the sake of brevity) as they were appointed prior to 28-11-2000, on which date the judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioners claimed to be belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe which is listed at Sr. No. 19 in the Presidential Order 1950 and obtained caste certificate from the competent Authority showing them to be belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners, on the basis of caste certificates, secured employment with the respondents. The Caste Certificates of the petitioners, thereafter, in due course were sent for scrutiny by the respondents to the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated/cancelled the caste certificates granted by the competent Authority in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners, apprehending termination of their services, challenged the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee by filing the present petitions. In Writ Petition No. 3980/2006, 2183/2006 and 2239/2006, this Court passed interim orders in petitioners' favour. The services of the petitioners; except services of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6637/2005, are not terminated.

12. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court delivered judgment in Milind's case on 28-11-2000. The Apex Court by this judgment overruled the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Milind Sharad Katware v. State of Maharashtra 1987 Mh.LJ. 572. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in above judgment has held that Halba-Koshti is sub division of Halba-Halbi as per entry 19 in part IX of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. It was also held that it was permissible to hold enquiry whether any sub division of a Tribe, though not mentioned in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act is a part and parcel of the Tribe mentioned therein. The Apex Court though overruled the above judgment of the Bombay High Court, protected admissions and appointments which have already become final.

It can, thus, be seen that in view of the above decision, the question as to whether Halba-Koshtis in the Vidarbha region in the State of Maharashtra are Scheduled Tribe was under shadow of doubt for a considerable length of time. In the case of Abhay Shrawanji Parate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had taken a view that Halba-Koshtis are entitled to the benefit of tribe Halba. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not interfere in the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment in Abhay Parate's case. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court admitted the Special Leave Petition challenging order of the High Court in Milind Sharad Katware and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) and passed interim orders as stated above. Till the judgment of the Apex Court in Milind's case (supra) Halba-Koshtis were treated as Halbas which position was, for the first time, disturbed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 36 are made not only to protect the interests of the respondent-Milind but the similarly situated candidates also. The Hon'ble Apex Court, protected the admissions and appointments of the candidates which are made final prior to the decision in that case. Had the Apex Court wanted to protect admission of respondent-Milind only, in that case, the observations in paragraph 36 that, "all the admissions and appointments, which are made final shall remain unaffected" would not have been made. Obviously, the Hon'ble Apex Court had made the decision expressly prospective making it clear that it may not apply to the candidates whose appointments and admissions have already made final.

19. In Central Warehouse Corporation v. Jagdishkumar Panjankar and Anr. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the similar issue. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case made the following observations:

...The question came up before the Bombay High Court that whether Koshtis is a sub-caste of Halba or not, this question was decided by the Bombay High Court and it was held that Koshtis is sub-caste of Halba (ST) and every Koshtis may be treated as a Halba (1987 Maharashtra Law Journal 572). This matter came up in special leave petition before this Court and this Court reserved the judgment and took the view that the Koshtis is not a sub-caste of Halba. However, while disposing of that appeal their Lordships said in last two lines which reads: