(1.) THE question involved in the writ petition is whether Raikwar is sub-caste of Manjhi and whether it is open to include Raikwar within the Manjhi caste in the absence of same being specified in the presidential order as one of the Scheduled Tribes.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 25-5-1990 in M. P. Antyavasayi Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd. It is significant that the petitioner was appointed on 25-5-1990 and after about one month, he sought mention of Raikwar caste instead of Manjhi against his name. Suspicion arose about the caste of the petitioner. The matter was enquired into and it was found that the certificate produced by the petitioner at Manjhi caste was not correct. The respondents also found that fraud was committed while securing the appointment. After enquiry, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16-10-1996 to show cause why his services should not be dispensed with and why he should not be prosecuted under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Reply was filed by the petitioner. Petitioner admitted the fact that he applied for substitution of his caste. Since, he used to write Raikwar as surname, in the mark-sheet of llth issued by the Board of Secondary Education, his surname was mentioned as Raikwar. He obtained the certificate of caste in the year 1988-89. On enquiry being conducted by the respondents, it was found that the petitioner was student of Primary School run by Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and in transfer certificate issued by the said school caste of the petitioner was shown as "dheemer". In the admission register of Mahakaushal Higher Secondary School his caste was recorded as Dheemer. The petitioner expressed his ignorance how his caste came to be recorded in the Primary School and Higher Secondary School as Dheemer. Petitioner contends that he is actually Manjhi and was writing Raikwar right from the beginning and Raikwar has to be included in the sub-caste of Manjhi. He has also placed on record certificates/documents and decision of this Court in W. P. No. 830/1999 (The State of M. P. and another V. Rajesh Raikwar) (Annexure P-10), in which Rajesh Raikwar was claiming himself to be included in Manjhi community being its sub-caste. The Government was looking into the matter whether sub-caste of Raikwar can be included in Manjhi. Hence, the writ petition filed by the State was dismissed. Thus, the petitioner submits that his removal as per the order Annexure P-2 dated 5-11-1996 is illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) THE case of the respondent No. 2 in the return is that the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development has clarified this position that the Raikwar cannot be treated as synonymous of Manjhi nor it is a sub-caste. The certificate filed by the petitioner is illegal. The respondent No. 2 also relics upon the transfer certificate of Primary School - Annexure R-9 and transfer certificate-Annexure R-10, in which caste of the petitioner was mentioned as Dheemer. Various documents pertaining to the detailed enquiry conducted into the caste and correctness of the certificates have also been placed on record. In receipt of the application from the petitioner on 30-7-1990 for change of his caste, a letter was written by the respondent No. 2 to the Collector, Jabalpur on 8-9-1990, but, the Collector did not attend to the letter. Thereafter again reminder was sent on 31-5-1991. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Jabalpur issued a letter to the petitioner requiring him to produce caste certificate and the relevant documents on 4-11-93. Notice dated 4-11-1993 issued to the petitioner is Annexure R-3. Respondent No. 2 also issued a notice to the petitioner on 22-12-1993 to produce the original caste certificate, as well as District Antyavasayi Co-operative Development Society Ltd. also wrote letter to the petitioner on 21-8-1994 for verification of the caste certificate. The petitioner neither appeared before the officer of respondents authorities nor submitted any documents various letters were issued to the petitioner on 20-6-1994, 5-7-1994 and 13-8-1994 Annexure R-6 to Annexure R-8. In spite of receipt of notice, the petitioner did not submit his caste certificate nor appeared before the authority and then the enquiry was made from the Principal, Mahakaushal Higher Secondary School from where the petitioner passed Higher Secondary School examination and documents; certificate and transfer certificate - Annexure R-9 and Annexure R-10 were obtained. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Jabalpur opined that the petitioner submitted a false certificate for getting appointment in Scheduled Tribe quota. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 27-6-1996.

report of the Collector was also obtained on 18-10-1996 in which the Collector found that the petitioner does not belong to Manjhi caste and certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar), Jabalpur was cancelled. Show-cause notice was served on 16-10-1996. Reply was filed. Thereafter penalty vide order dated 5-11-1996 Annexure P-2 = Annexure R-16 was imposed.

(4.) THOUGH it is apparent from the fact finding enquiry that the petitioner is Dheemer and initially his caste was recorded as Dheemer in the school certificates, these documents are genuine and there is absolutely doubt on the verasity of these documents. Thus, it is not necessary to look into further question whether Raikwar and Manjhi are synonymous or whether Raikwar is sub-caste of Manjhi. Caste certificate filed by the petitioner mentions Manjhi as main caste and Raikwar is the sub-caste.

(5.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not the case of sub-caste, but, that of synonym and surname may differ and caste is Manjhi. Question for consideration is whether on case set up by the petitioner he is entitled for relief.

(6.) THIS question whether scope of an entry made in presidential notification can be expanded by including synonymous or sub-castes, is considered by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, (2001) 1 SCC 4 , [LQ/SC/2000/1837 ;] wherein Supreme Court laid down that a notification issued under Article 341 (1) or 342 (1) cannot be varied by any subsequent notification except by law made by Parliament. In other words, Parliament alone is competent by law to include in or exclude a caste/tribe from the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in notifications issued under clause (1) of the said articles. In including castes and tribes in Presidential Orders, the President is authorised to limit the notification to parts or groups within the caste or tribe depending on the educational and social backwardness. It is permissible to specify only parts or groups within them and further to specify castes or tribes thereof in relation to parts of the State and not to the entire State. The object of Articles 341 (1) and 342 (1) was to keep away disputes touching whether a caste/tribe is a Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe or not for the purpose of the Constitution. Whether a particular caste or a tribe is Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be, within the meaning of the entries contained in the Presidential Orders issued under Article 341 (1) and 342 (1) is to be determined looking into them as they are. Articles 341 (2) and 342 (2) do not permit any one to seek modification of the said orders by leading evidence that the caste/tribe (A) alone is mentioned in the order but caste/tribe (B) is also a part of caste/tribe (A) and as such caste/ tribe (B) should be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe as the case may be. Therefore, it serves no purpose to look at gazetteers or glossaries for establishing that a particular caste/tribe is a Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe for the purpose of Constitution, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such in the Presidential Orders. Orders once issued under Articles 341 (1) and 342 (1) cannot be varied by subsequent order or notification even by the President except by law made by Parliament. Hence, it is not possible to say that State Governments or any other authority or Courts or Tribunals are vested with any power to modify or vary the said orders. Therefore, no inquiry is permissible and no evidence can be let in for establishing that a particular caste or part or group within tribes or tribe is included in Presidential Order if they are not expressly included in the orders. States have no power to amend Presidential Orders. Consequently, a party in power or the Government of the day in a State is relieved from the pressure or burden of tinkering with the Presidential Orders either to gain popularity or secure votes. Courts are also cautioned from enlarging the scope by directing the State to conduct enquiry into sub-caste where sub-caste was to be included in the Presidential Order. Such exercise is not even permissible to the Court as Apex Court has held that Courts cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. It was made clear that there is no other authority other than Parliament, that too by law alone can amend the Presidential Orders, neither the State Governments nor the Courts nor Tribunals nor any authority can assume jurisdiction to hold inquiry and take evidence to declare that a caste or a tribe or part of or a group within a caste or tribe is included in Presidential Orders in one entry or the other, although they are not expressly and specifically included.

(7.) THEREFORE, it has to be held that it is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in it.

(8.) THE said decision clinches the case set up by the petitioner in the instant writ petition that Raikwar is synonym or the sub-caste of Manjhi caste. Certificate filed shows Raikwar is sub-caste of Manjhi. Such certificate cannot include petitioner within scope of entry as sub-caste cannot be included nor synonym can be found.

(9.) FIRSTLY, it is found on factual investigation that the certificate obtained was fraudulent as the petitioners caste was Dheemer. He is neither Raikwar nor Manjhi. Even otherwise, considering his case that of Raikwar, his case does not survive. No dent is caused in the order passed of dismissal after holding due proper enquiry.

(10.) IN the result, the writ petition has no merit, same is dismissed. Costs on parties.