Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P Nos. 958 of 2009, 2760 of 2007 and 6347 of 2012

Attorney(S)

S.R Narnaware and S.A Marathe
Mrs. S.W Deshpande and S.M Puranik
N.W Sambre, Government Pleader

Judges

B.P Dharmadhikari
A.B Chaudhari, JJ.

Acts

Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (hereinafter referred as the Act No. 23 of 2001 for short)
section 10 of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
(supra). Section 10 of Act No. 23
section 10 of Act No. 23

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitions were filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of termination passed by the petitioners' respective employer consequent to invalidation of their caste claims by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (which had invalidated their claim to belong to Halba — a Scheduled Tribe). The petitioners have expressly given up any challenge to the invalidation of their caste certificates and confined their relief to seeking protection in employment only.

The petitioners were aware of an earlier judgment dated 11-3-2013 in Writ Petition No. 5569 of 2012 (in which relief against termination was denied) and that the respondent-employer and the Scrutiny Committee opposed protection. The present matters were heard on an expedited basis at the request of petitioners' counsel and taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule returnable forthwith.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether petitioners who have had their caste certificate invalidated, but who have given up challenging that invalidation, are entitled to protection in employment (i.e., protection against termination) based on subsequent High Court and Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the petitioners.
Whether the Full Bench decision in Ganesh Rambhau Khalale v. State of Maharashtra (Full Bench) remains binding, or has been overruled/limited by later decisions including the Supreme Court's judgment in Kavita Solunke and later Division Bench decisions of this Court.
Whether the effect of section 10 of the Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001 (regarding issuance and verification of caste certificates) prevents the High Court from granting protection in employment in such cases, and whether Division Bench judgments extending protection can be read as overriding or ignoring that statutory provision.
Whether the protection extended in Kavita Solunke and similar decisions is a product of Article 141 or Article 142 of the Constitution and whether the High Court was required to determine that point when extending protection.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as presented by Shri Narnaware and Shri Marathe)

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and on later Division Bench decisions of this Court (for example Devidas Vitthalrao Bhonde, Pramod Krushnarao Bayaskar, Tarachand Fukirchand Ninave and others) to contend that protection in employment should be extended to them despite invalidation of their caste claims.
They argued that the Full Bench decision in Ganesh Rambhau Khalale had been rendered ineffective (or its binding effect diminished) by the Supreme Court judgment in Kavita Solunke and by subsequent Division Bench decisions of this Court that followed Kavita Solunke.
They also relied on other authorities (including C.N. Rudramurthy v. K. Barkathulla Khan, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others) to argue principles on how precedents should be approached and applied.
In the alternative, petitioners' counsel asked for a reference to a larger Bench if the Court was not inclined to accept the later Division Bench decisions as displacing the Full Bench view.

Respondents' Arguments (Scrutiny Committee and State — as presented by Ms. Deshpande, Shri Puranik and Shri Sambre)

The Scrutiny Committee's counsel submitted that the later Division Bench judgments relied upon by petitioners did not properly consider the Full Bench view in Ganesh Khalale and therefore cannot be read as displacing it; they relied on Union of India v. Manik Lal Banerjee to argue that those Division Bench decisions are not binding in the relevant respect.
They argued that section 10 of Act No. 23 of 2001 must prevail and that this Court cannot ignore the legislative mandate embodied therein; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje (Supreme Court) was relied upon heavily for this proposition.
The Government Pleader supported the Scrutiny Committee's submissions and referred to the decision dated 11-3-2013 in Writ Petition No. 5569/2012 as dispositive of many of the issues; he also submitted that historical peculiarities relied upon by petitioners (for Halba Koshti) were not relevant in light of subsequent developments.
The Scrutiny Committee's counsel and Government Pleader also pointed out that several decisions (a list of 22 judgments filed by them) show that protection has not been extended in numerous instances and that many of those were considered on 11-3-2013.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra (2012(5) Mh.L.J 921)	Invoked by petitioners to show that protection in employment has been extended by the Apex Court and by later Division Bench decisions in similar cases.	The Court considered that petitioners relied on this judgment but concluded that Kavita Solunke did not operate to overrule the Full Bench view in Ganesh Khalale; later Division Bench decisions following Kavita Solunke had not shown that the Full Bench view was displaced.
Devidas Vitthalrao Bhonde v. Divisional Controller MSRTC (Writ Petition No. 2162/2012)	One of the Division Bench decisions relied upon by petitioners for extending protection in service.	Mentioned as a decision relied upon by petitioners; the Court observed that such Division Bench decisions did not show that the Full Bench in Ganesh Khalale had been overruled.
Pramod Krushnarao Bayaskar v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Writ Petition No. 4013/2012)	Another Division Bench decision cited by petitioners for the proposition that protection may be extended.	Noted by the Court as among the decisions on which petitioners placed reliance, but it did not persuade the Court to depart from Ganesh Khalale.
Tarachand Fukirchand Ninave v. Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman (Writ Petition No. 402/2012) (2013(1) Mh.L.J 747)	Relied on by petitioners as authority for protection in employment.	Included among the decisions considered by petitioners; the Court observed such decisions did not displace the Full Bench precedent.
C.N. Rudramurthy v. K. Barkathulla Khan ((1998) 8 SCC 275)	Relied upon to support an argument about the scope and application of a Constitutional Bench paragraph in Milind Katware.	Referenced as part of petitioners' supporting authorities; Court noted the reliance but proceeded to analyze the binding effect of the Full Bench and statutory provision.
State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware (2001) 1 SCC 4	Referred to for the last paragraph in a Constitutional Bench judgment which was said to extend protection (education/admission/protection in last paragraph).	The petitioners relied on the last paragraph as supporting protection; the Court observed that this paragraph was considered in later arguments but did not lead the Court to conclude that Ganesh Khalale had been overruled.
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand ((2008) 10 SCC 1)	Cited by petitioners to argue limits on the High Court's role in determining the basis (Article 141 vs Article 142) on which protective relief is extended.	Mentioned by petitioners; Court noted the submission but held no necessity to decide or to be guided away from the Full Bench precedent in Ganesh Khalale.
Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India ((1992) 4 SCC 97)	Invoked to show how Apex Court judgments are to be approached, appreciated and applied.	Used as part of petitioners' broader argument about precedent; the Court observed prior discussions of binding effect of precedents but did not rely on this to depart from Ganesh Khalale.
Narinder Singh v. Surjit Singh ((1984) 2 SCC 402; AIR 1984 SC 1359)	Referenced by petitioners on how precedents and judicial discipline are to be treated.	Mentioned in submissions; Court did not find it necessary to revisit those issues given its reliance on the Full Bench decision and statutory provision.
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra ((2005) 2 SCC 673)	Invoked by petitioners as part of authorities on the approach to precedents.	Noted among authorities relied upon; did not alter the Court's conclusion upholding the Full Bench view and the effect of section 10 of the Act.
Ganesh Rambhau Khalale v. State of Maharashtra (Full Bench) (2009(2) Mh.L.J (F.B) 788; AIR 2009 Bom. 122)	The Full Bench decision said to be binding on the High Court regarding consequences of caste-certificate invalidation and the operation of section 10 of Act No. 23.	The Court held that the Full Bench decision remains valid and binding; the petitioners had not shown it to be incorrect or overridden by the Supreme Court or other authoritative decisions in a way that would permit ignoring section 10 of Act No. 23.
Raju Gadekar (Single Judge judgment in Writ Petition No. 1561/2009 and subsequent Letters Patent Appeal)	Referred to by petitioners as an instance where a Single Judge did not follow Ganesh Khalale and was allowed in Letters Patent Appeal; later involved the Supreme Court.	Mentioned as background context; Court noted its reference in Kavita Solunke but did not treat it as displacing the Full Bench's authority.
Prashant Haribhau Khawas v. State of Maharashtra (2008 (2) Mh.L.J 322)	Relied upon to submit that section 10 of Act No. 23 is prospective.	Noted by petitioners; Court observed that this view had been maintained in an SLP dismissal but did not accept that it displaces the Full Bench view or the legislative mandate.
Union of India v. Manik Lal Banerjee (2006 (7) Scale 386)	Relied upon by respondents to argue limitations on reading Division Bench judgments as displacing Full Bench decisions.	Respondents cited it to argue that later Division Bench judgments cannot be read as binding where they did not consider the Full Bench; Court referred to this authority in its analysis.
Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar v. State of Maharashtra (2010 (2) Mh.L.J 424)	One of the local decisions relied upon by respondents in support of the proposition that section 10 must be applied.	Noted by respondents; the Court considered it among the authorities supporting the statutory position but did not rely on it to change the outcome beyond applying the Full Bench reasoning.
State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje ((2007) 14 SCC 481; 2007(3) Mh.L.J (S.C) 795)	Relied upon by respondents and the Government Pleader to show that section 10 of Act No. 23 must be given effect and that High Court cannot refuse to implement it.	The Court recorded the reliance and treated the decision as supporting the respondents' position that the statutory provision must be followed; this influenced the Court's refusal to extend protection on the basis urged by petitioners.
A.P. Ramtekkar v. Union of India (2013(2) Mh.L.J 419)	A Division Bench judgment invoked as a later decision considering related issues and Full Bench authority.	Discussed in the opinion as a later Division Bench decision; the Court found that such Division Bench decisions had not been positioned to overrule or displace the Full Bench in Ganesh Khalale.
Prabhakar Rushi Nandanwar v. Joint Commissioner (2013(1) Mh.L.J 156)	A Division Bench decision cited by petitioners as supporting protection in light of Kavita Solunke.	The Court observed that this judgment, like other later Division Bench judgments, did not demonstrate the displacement of the Full Bench view and so was not decisive.
Jagan Ganpatrao Taklikar v. Union of India (2013(1) Mh.L.J 879)	A Division Bench decision of this Court (dated 11-3-2013) that followed earlier lines and was relied upon by the respondents as consistent with refusal to extend protection.	The Court treated this decision as significant and found that it followed the same line as previous judgments refusing protection; it helped support the Court's conclusion that Full Bench authority remained binding.
Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Sushil Kumar ((2006) 2 SCC 471)	Cited in the opinion for the proposition that filing of certain undertakings should not be treated as the ratio of a Constitutional Bench judgment and in relation to consideration of precedents' binding effects.	The Court referred to this authority (LIC/Union Of India v. Sushil Kumar) as part of the analysis of precedential effect and to justify that it was unnecessary to revisit certain issues about the binding effect of prior decisions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by first noting the limited nature of the petitioners' claim — they had given up challenging the invalidation of their caste certificates and sought only protection in employment. The Court then analyzed the competing authorities and the effect of section 10 of Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001 (on issuance and verification of caste certificates).

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's Kavita Solunke judgment and subsequent Division Bench decisions of this Court which had extended protection in certain cases. The petitioners argued that those decisions showed that the Full Bench decision in Ganesh Khalale had lost binding effect.

The Court examined whether the later Division Bench authorities or the Supreme Court decision operated to overrule or displace the Full Bench verdict in Ganesh Khalale. It observed that the Division Bench judgments extending protection had not been required to determine whether the protection in Kavita Solunke rested on Article 141 or Article 142 of the Constitution and that none of those judgments expressly held that Ganesh Khalale had been overruled or modified.

The Court relied on its earlier reasoning in the judgment dated 11-3-2013 (Writ Petition No. 5569/2012) and noted that in that judgment precedents on the binding effect of earlier decisions had been considered, including the observation in Union of India v. Manik Lal Banerjee. The Court concluded that the Full Bench decision in Ganesh Khalale remains valid and binding and that section 10 of Act No. 23 of 2001 provides a legislative mandate that cannot be ignored. The petitioners had not challenged the validity of section 10 nor shown the Full Bench's findings to be incorrect such as to warrant overturning them.

Considering these factors, the Court found that the petitioners' reliance on later judgments (Supreme Court and Division Bench) was misconceived for the purpose of obtaining protection in employment in the present circumstances. The Court therefore found no case warranting the grant of protection.

The Court also addressed a procedural matter of costs: it recalled its earlier order dated 21-3-2013 which had saddled costs of Rs. 5,000 on the Scrutiny Committee because, on that date, the Committee's counsel had no notice that matters would be taken up for final hearing.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Writ Petitions are dismissed.

Implications:

The petitioners were not granted protection in employment; their applications for protective relief based on later decisions (including Kavita Solunke and certain Division Bench rulings) were held to be misconceived in the factual and legal context of these petitions.
The Court reaffirmed that the Full Bench decision in Ganesh Rambhau Khalale v. State of Maharashtra remains valid and binding on this Court, and that section 10 of Act No. 23 of 2001 cannot be overlooked by the High Court in the circumstances before it.
The Court recalled the earlier order imposing costs of Rs. 5,000 on the Scrutiny Committee (dated 21-3-2013) and, in the result of dismissal, directed that in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
No new precedent was set by this decision; the judgment applies the Court's view on the binding nature of the Full Bench and the effect of the statutory provision as discussed in the opinion.

Petitions dismissed.

Note: This summary is strictly confined to the matters, submissions, authorities and reasoning expressly recorded in the provided opinion. No information has been added beyond what appears in the text.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Archana Dadarao Pethkar v. Joint Commissioner And Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati And Another

B.P Dharmadhikari, J.:— By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination passed by their respective Employer as a consequence of invalidation of their caste claim. Though in the petitions as filed the orders passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, invalidating caste claims of the petitioners as belonging to Halba - Scheduled Tribe, have also been impugned, the petitioners only claim protection in employment and expressly restrict their challenge only to the order of termination and have given up the claim to the status as belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe. Right to challenge order invalidating caste certificate is given up with knowledge of the judgment dated 11-3-2013 delivered in Writ Petition No. 5569 of 2012 and of fact that Respondent-Employer, as also the Caste Scrutiny Committee are opposing the grant of protection. In Writ Petition No. 5569/2012, Shri Narnaware, only had assisted this Court on behalf of similarly placed petitioner who acquiesced in order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur invalidating his caste claim as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe and had confined to seeking protection against the order of termination dated 3-11-2009, passed by Additional General Manager/Engineering LMD National Aviation Company of India Limited. The said relief has been denied and writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 11-3-2013. One of us (Justice B.P Dharmadhikari) is, party to said judgment. Protection in service was being claimed on the basis of various judgments, particularly a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2012(5) Mh.L.J 921, and judgments of Division Bench of this Bench dated 4-10-2012 in Writ Petition No. 2162/2012 (Devidas Vitthalrao Bhonde v. Divisional Controller MSRTC, Amravati) as also dated 8-10-2012 in Writ Petition No. 4013/2012 (Pramod Krushnarao Bayaskar v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee), a judgment dated 3-10-2012 in Writ Petition No. 402/2012 Tarachand Fukirchand Ninave v. Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, 2013(1) Mh.L.J 747 was also pressed into service for said purpose. Expressing that he could not, at that juncture, point out some relevant precedents Shri Narnaware sought to reagitate the issue only to show impact of these other judgments. Shri Marathe, learned Counsel has also towed same line.

2. It is in this background, we have heard Shri S.R Namaware, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. S.W Deshpande and Shri S.M Puranik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Scrutiny Committee in respective matters and Shri N.W Sambre, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of State Government. At the request of the Counsel for petitioners' matters are taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.

3. Shri Narnaware and Shri Marathe, respective learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners draw support from a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (1998) 8 SCC 275, C.N Rudramurthy v. K. Barkathulla Khan to submit that last paragraph in Constitutional Bench judgment in case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind, 2001(1) Mh.L.J 1 : (2001) 1 SCC 4, also extends protection in employment. (2008) 10 SCC 1, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand is pressed into, service to urge that, it is not open to High Court to find out whether the said paragraph in Milind Katware's case is under Article 142. or under Article 141. Support is also taken from judgments reported at (1992) 4 SCC 97, Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 402 : AIR 1984 SC 1359, Narinder Singh v. Surjit Singh, (2005) 2 SCC 673, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, to show how the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court need to be approached, appreciated and applied.

4. Judgment in case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra. (supra), is relied upon with contention that in the background the Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Ganesh Rambhau Khalale v. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2009(2) Mh.L.J (F.B) 788 : AIR 2009 Bom. 122 stands overruled in the said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. The judgment of one of us as Single Judge (by Justice A.B Chaudhari) in Writ Petition No. 1561/2009 is also shown to this Court with contention that there this Court did not follow Ganesh Khalale and Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the employee - Raju Gadekar against it was allowed. The employee then went to Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed Raju Gadekar to approach this Court and his review petition is now pending in this Court. The judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in case of Raju Gadekar (supra), is looked into in paragraph No. 4 of the latter judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kavita Solunke.

5. Judgment delivered by the Division Bench at Nagpur and reported at 2008 (2) Mh.L.J 322, Prashant Haribhau Khawas v. State of Maharashtra. is relied upon to submit that there the Division Bench has found section 10 of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (hereinafter referred as “the Act No. 23 of 2001” for short) prospective. Shri Narnaware, learned Counsel submits that this view was maintained by the Hon'ble Apex Court when it dismissed S.L.P (Civil) No. 24531/2008 against it on 30-3-2012.

6. Division Bench judgments delivered at 2013(2) Mh.L.J 419, A.P Ramtekkar v. Union of India and 2013(1) Mh.L.J 156, Prabhakar Rushi Nandanwar v. Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate are also relied upon by Shri Narnaware, with contention that there the Full Bench judgment in case in the matter of Ganesh Khalale is, looked into and the Division Bench has found that in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kavita Solunke, the Full Bench judgment has lost its binding effect. In the alternative, learned Counsel submits that if this Court is not inclined to follow these later Division Bench judgments, a case for reference to larger Bench is made out.

7. Mrs. S.W Deshpande and Shri S.M Puranik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee submits that these later judgments do not look into the Full Bench judgment in case of Ganesh Khalale. In the light of the judgment reported at 2006 (7) Scale 386, Union of India v. Manik lal Banerjee, they submit that these Division Bench judgments cannot be read as binding precedents. 2010 (2) Mh.L.J 424, Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar v. State of Maharashtra and 2007(3) Mh.L.J (S.C) 795 : (2007) 14 SCC 481, State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje, are relied upon by them to urge that the provisions of section 10 have to prevail and this Court cannot refuse to implement the same.

8. Shri N.W Sambre, learned Government Pleader supports the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee and relies heavily on the judgment in case of State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje (supra). He submits that the peculiar history pressed into service by Shri Narnaware, learned Counsel and noted by this Court in 1985 is not relevant due to subsequent developments and the controversy is covered by the view taken by this Court on 11-3-2013 while deciding Writ Petition No. 5569/2012.

9. We may mention here that the effort of petitioners is in the background of judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 11-3-2013 while deciding Writ Petition No. 5569/2012. Judgment reported at 2013(1) Mh.L.J 879, Jagan Ganpatrao Taklikar v. Union of India is by Division Bench of this Court and follow the same line as in previous judgments already referred to in this judgment dated 11-3-2013. Later judgment in Jagan Taklikar (supra) is by the same Hon'ble Judge and even there, attention of this Court was not drawn to the Full Bench view in Ganesh Khalale (supra). It is therefore not sufficient to hold that said Division Bench has found anything wrong with the Full Bench view and to persuade us to depart from view expressed on 11-3-2103 in Writ Petition No. 5569 of 2012. Same also applies to judgment reported at 2013(1) Mh.L.J 156, Prabhakr Nandanwar v. Joint Commissioner. Here also, it is not in dispute that the Full Bench view in Ganesh Khalale (supra) was not pressed and did not attract any consideration. This judgment in Writ Petition No. 900 of 2012 is dated 9-10-2012. On 1-11-2012, very same Bench has decided Writ Petition No. 5198 of 2009 and two more writ petitions and that judgment is reported in A.P Ramtekkar v. Union of India (supra). In A.P Ramtekkar v. Union of India, in paragraph 15 the Hon'ble Bench has mentioned the Full Bench judgment in Ganesh Khalale (supra) but, then has observed that this Full Bench is already considered by it on 9-10-2012 while deciding Writ Petition No. 900 of 2012, Prabhakr Nandanwar v. Joint Commissioner (supra). The parties did not invite the attention of the Court to the fact that this position was not correct. With that impression, the order of other Division Bench dismissing Letters Patent Appeal No. 34/2012 in motion was found not relevant. Thus, the Division Bench which consistently took a view contrary to Full Bench in Ganesh Khalale, in effect, was never called upon by any of the parties to consider the impact of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kavita Solunke (supra) on merits on the Full Bench view in Ganesh Khalale (supra).

10. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje (supra) relied upon by Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader to show that it considers section 10 of Act No. 23 of 2001 already finds consideration in judgment pronounced on 11-3-2013. Smt. Deshpande and Shri Puranik, learned Counsel have filed list of 22 judgments where the protection has not been extended and few of the same are already looked into by this Court on 11-3-2013.

11. The Division Benches of this Court extending protection in the light of Kavita Solunke (supra) were not required to find out whether protection being extended by the Hon'ble Apex Court is under Article 141 or Article 142 of the Constitution of India. None of these judgments hold that law laid down in Ganesh Khalale (supra) by the Full Bench of this Court has been overruled or modified and that consequences of section 10 of Act No. 23 of 2001 can be overlooked by High Court. In judgment dated 11-3-2013 this Court has noted that in case of LIC of Union Of India & Ors…. v. Shri Sushil Kumar, (2006) 2 SCC 471, Hon'ble Two Judges of the Apex Court find that filing of the undertaking was not to be treated as the ratio of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware (supra). Also precedents on binding effect are already considered therein. It is therefore, not necessary to refer to various judgments cited by parties on binding effect of precedents or judicial discipline. Specific answer given by the Full Bench remains still valid and binding. No effort has been made by present petitioners to urge that findings recorded therein are incorrect and require reconsideration. He has urged that when the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered its judgment in case of Milind Katware (supra), State enactment i.e Act No. 23 of 2001 or then section 10 was not in force. This position is actually to the disadvantage of present petitioners. There is also no challenge to validity of said provision. There is no attempt to demonstrate that in present situation, High Court can ignore the legislative mandate. Full Bench of this Court in Ganesh Khalale (supra), has not applied law as laid down in Prashant Khawas (supra). section 10 of Act No. 23 of 2010 only recognizes legal consequence which always ensued even in its absence. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Manik Lal Banerjee (supra), also shows that judgments delivered by this Court without considering section 10 cannot be accepted as binding precedents. Hence, in the light of discussion in judgment dated 11-3-2013 delivered at Nagpur, we do not find that Full Bench verdict in Ganesh Khalale (supra) is overruled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kavita Solunke.

12. Shri Namaware, learned Counsel has invited attention to peculiar plight of Halba Koshti petitioners by pointing out the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kavita Solunke (supra) and also other judgments of Apex Court looked into therein. It needs to be noted that the Division Bench of this Court which decided the case of Milind Katware (supra) in his favour in 1987 (1987 Mh.L.J 572) had applied the doctrine of stare decisis because of the special features only but then the same was overruled by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware (supra) where, in last paragraph, it extended protection to education or admission of Milind. Hence, the peculiar features noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court or by this Court cannot, by itself enable this Court to discard the Full Bench judgment in Ganesh Khalale (supra). We, therefore, cannot overlook the mandate of section 10 of Act No. 23 of 2001. We have to follow the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ganesh Khalale (supra) and various other judgments of co-ordinate Benches of this Court already pointed out above. Later judgments relied upon by Shri Narnawre, learned Counsel are, therefore, not decisive.

13. In this situation, we find that claim of the petitioners before this Court for protection on the strength of these later judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court or of the Division Benches of this Court is misconceived. No case is made out warranting grant of protection. However, order of this Court dated 21-3-2013 saddling costs of Rs. Five Thousand only on Scrutiny Committee is recalled as on said date its learned Counsel had no notice that matters would be taken up for final hearing. In the result, Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.