- (1.) I have had the benefit of seeing the order passed by Justice H.K. Sema directing the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Punjab National Bank. I would chose to give my reasons while agreeing with my learned Brother that the appeals deserve to be dismissed. The followings are my reasons:
(2.) The High Court after referring to the Government Resolution dated 30.6.2004 and relying on the reported decision of this Court in State of Mahrashtra vs. Milind & others [(2001) 1 SCC 4], allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of termination. The Resolution dated 30.6.2004 emanates from the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995. The corresponding para 4 of the Resolution dated 15.6.1995 reads as under: "4. The reservation given to the abovementioned Special backward Category will remain as a backlog for direct service recruitment and promotion. The principle of crimilayer will not apply to this category. The persons in the category who have prior to this on the basis of scheduled tribe certificate obtained admission in the government, semi government services on promotion they should not be removed from this promotion or service." Corresponding paragraph 4 of the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 was reiterated in paragraph (a) of the Government Resolution dated 30.6.2004 which reads as under: "(a) The non tribal who have received recruitment promotion in the government/semi governmental services on the reserved seats for the scheduled tribes prior to 15th June, 1995, should not be removed from service or should not be demoted. They should be shown in the constituent to which they belong. Henceforth the reservation benefits entitled to that particular constituent will be due to them and the vacated posts in this manner should be filled from the tribal category."
(3.) Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant Bank contended firstly that the High Court was not right in relying upon the decision in Milind s case (supra). For this he relied on the judgment in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Sanjay K. Nimje [2007 (2) Scale 214] where this Court also made a reference to the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 in paragraph 13 of the judgment and held that since the respondent therein was appointed on 29.6.1995, the protection of Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 was not available in his case. Shri Mehta also pointed out that in the latter part of the judgment this Court made a reference to the enactment called Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Caegory (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and went on to hold that since the petitioner therein was not protected by the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995, he would be covered under the said enactment and more particularly under Section 10 thereof which provided that the benefits secured on the basis of false caste certificate would be withdrawn and such person cannot continue to reap the benefits on the basis of the caste certificate which was found to be incorrect. Shri Mehta referred to paras 13, 14 and 17 of that judgment and urged that the situation was no different in this case. He further pointed out that the Division Bench had referred to Milind s case (supra) and had observed in para 21: "It may be true that an authoritative pronouncement in this behalf came for the first time in Milind s case (supra) but it is not a case where the respondent pleaded and proved bona fide". Mr.Mehta, therefore, firstly urged that the High Court could not have applied the law laid down in Milind s case. He also urged that the said Resolution dated 15.6.1995 would not be applicable to the Central Government Employees and the banks. He urged that the respondent herein, being a bank employee, was not entitled to the benefit of the Resolution. Therefore, Shri Mehta contends that firstly the respondent cannot get the benefit of Milind s case and secondly he cannot get the protection of the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 particularly because of the subsequent Act passed by the State of Maharashtra which is directly relied upon by the Division Bench.;