Service protection granted by final judicial orders cannot be reopened through subsequent administrative caste scrutiny.

The petitioner was appointed as a Patwari in 1998 under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category based on a "Halba" caste certificate.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in *State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001)*, it was clarified that "Halba-Koshti" is not an ST; however, the Union and State governments issued circulars protecting appointments made prior to 28.11.2000.

When the State attempted to withdraw this protection in 2016, the petitioner obtained a protective order in WPS No. 616/2016, which was affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the petitioner was promoted to Revenue Inspector in the General Category.

Despite this finality, the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated his certificate in 2019, and the Respondent No. 3 terminated his services on 14.09.2023 without a departmental inquiry or hearing.

1. Whether the respondent authorities were legally justified in terminating the petitioner's services based on his caste status despite prior judicial orders granting service protection.

2. Whether the principles of *res judicata* and finality of litigation prohibit the reopening of the petitioner's service protection status.

The Court applied the doctrine of protection for bona fide appointments made prior to 28.11.2000 as established in *State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4*.

It further relied on the principle of *res judicata* and the finality of binding judicial decisions as articulated in *Daryao v. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 SC 1457)*.

The Court also applied the precedents of *Gajanan Marotrao Nimje v. RBI (2019) 12 SCC 639* and *R. Unnikrishnan v. V.K. Mahanudevan (2014) 4 SCC 434*, which prohibit the collateral disturbance of service protections once granted by final court orders.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was appointed on 29.04.1998, he squarely falls within the cut-off date (28.11.2000) for service protection established by the Supreme Court and subsequent Government circulars.

The Court noted that the issue of the petitioner’s service protection had already attained finality through previous litigation (WPS No. 616/2016 and WA No. 542/2016), which was upheld by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the State's SLP.

The Court observed that the Caste Scrutiny Committee’s 2019 order invalidating the certificate could not override these binding inter-party judicial directions.

Furthermore, the summary termination without a disciplinary inquiry or hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

The Court held that while the petitioner cannot claim future ST benefits, his existing service is shielded from termination by the doctrine of finality.

It held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

The Court directed that the petitioner be treated as a General Category employee for all service purposes effective from 28.11.2000 and shall not be entitled to any ST (Halba) benefits henceforth.

Compliance was ordered within eight weeks.