11-WP.12370.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 11 WRIT PETITION NO. 12370 OF 2026 Swapnil Anil Balwant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Thr Sub Divisional Magistrate And Ors ... Ms. Manjiri A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent-State. ... CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged an order holding the petitioner’s caste claim to be invalid. The petitioner is in service with respondent no.3. The apprehension now expressed is that, in view of invalidation of the caste claim, respondent no.3 would terminate the services of the petitioner, as the petitioner was appointed against a post reserved for a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The impugned judgment and order is dated 24.08.2026, i.e. after the appointment of Appellate Authority under Section 6B Maharashtra Act No.XXXVIII of 2026. This Court finds that the apprehension is Sayyed 1/2 2026:BHC-AUG:42663-DB 11-WP.12370.2026.doc misplaced in view of sub-section (5) of Section 10, which provides protection to a person in service for a period of 30 days, after the decision of the Appellate Authority and even if no appeal is provided for 30 days after the limitation is over i.e. 90 days plus 30 days. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, however, submits that this protection is not mentioned in the order and on the contrary there is a stipulation directing respondent no.3 to take action. Be that as it may, once the statute grants such protection, there is no question of having any apprehension in the mind of petitioner. 4. On this itself, petition can be disposed of conveniently by directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. Needless to say, the protection shall continue till the appeal is decided and 30 days thereafter. 5. Petition stands disposed off. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.) Sayyed 2/2