JUDGMENT H. N. Seth, J. - Since the controversy raised in these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is substantially the same, they have, with the consent of both the parties, been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3612 of 1980 are Chandan Singh, resident of village Noorpur, district Bijnor and Rishi Ram resident of village Roshanpur Jagir, district Bijnor. Both the petitioners applied to the Tahsildar Dhampur, district Bijnor for a certificate that they belonged to Bhuiyar community which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1956. After obtaining the report dated 7th Nov., 1979 from the Naiba Tahsildar, in the case of petitioner Chandan Singh, and that dated 9th Oct. 1979 from Supervisor Kanungo, in the case of petitioner Rishi Ram, the Tahsildar rejected their respective applications vide his orders dated 9th Nov., 1979 and 9th Oct., 1979. According to the report of the Naib Tahsildar dated 7th Nov., 1979 various villages in his area (which included Noorpur) were inhabited by persons belonging to Bhayar community (Hindu Julaha) whose general standard of living in the past had been much above that of the members of the scheduled castes. Neither did they eat or dine with members of Scheduled Castes nor did they enter into matrimonial alliances with such members. They married in their own caste only, and they definitely belonged to Bhayar Julaha community who had started calling themselves as Bhuiyars. The report further mentioned that members of the Bhayar community could not be considered to be belonging to scheduled caste community. The report dated 9th Oct., 1979 from the Supervisor Kanungo in the case of petitioner Rishi Ram merely mentioned that he has already reported that no person of Bhuiyar community resided in his Tehsil. 3. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981 are 1. Zila Bhuiyar Jati Sudhar Sabha, Bijnor, 2. Genda Singh Upadhyaksha, of Zila Bhuiyar Jati Sudhar Sabha petitioners Nos. 1, and 3. Sheo Lal Singh member of petitioner No. 1. Sabha. 3. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981 are 1. Zila Bhuiyar Jati Sudhar Sabha, Bijnor, 2. Genda Singh Upadhyaksha, of Zila Bhuiyar Jati Sudhar Sabha petitioners Nos. 1, and 3. Sheo Lal Singh member of petitioner No. 1. Sabha. According to them due to certain reasons stated in the writ petition, the district authorities got annoyed with the members of Bhuiyar community residing in the district of Bijnor and the District Magistrate, Bijnor as also the Zila Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Bijnor have issued instructions to the subordinates not to recognise the certificate issued to members of Bhuiyar community in the district and not to afford such persons any facility available to the members of Scheduled castes. Consequent to the directions issued by aforementioned two authorities, Principals of various Educational Institutions have advised the students belonging to Bhuiyar caste to pay their entire tution fees by 31st of Mar., 1981 as they were not entitled to exemption, failing which their names were to be struck off the rolls. The stipends that were being given to the students belonging to Bhuiyar community had also been stopped in the district ever since the month of Feb., 1981 and the district authorities were further threatening to cancel the certificates already issued to the members of Bhuiyar community on the ground that they did not belong to scheduled caste community. 4. The stand taken by the respondents in Writ Petition No. 3612 of 1980 filed by Chandan Singh and Rishi Ram is that the State Government has issued instructions contained in Annexure-CA1 for guiding the district officers in granting certificates that a particular person belongs to a scheduled caste. Those instructions have clarified that a person does not necessarily belong to a scheduled caste, because the caste to which he claims to belong happens to have the same name as one of the scheduled castes. On receiving an application for scheduled caste certificates the district officer is to carefully scrutinise the applicants' claim. If the district officer has any reason to doubt the validity of the caste, he should question the claimant closely about his origin, place of residence, caste affinity and custom before granting him the certificate applied for. On receiving an application for scheduled caste certificates the district officer is to carefully scrutinise the applicants' claim. If the district officer has any reason to doubt the validity of the caste, he should question the claimant closely about his origin, place of residence, caste affinity and custom before granting him the certificate applied for. Accordingly, on receipt of applications from Chandan Singh and Rishi Ram for certificates that they belonged to a scheduled caste, namely, Bhuiyar, a report was called for from the Naib Tahsildar and the Supervisor Kanungo. The Naib Tahsildar recorded the statements of Khyali Singh, Babu Ram and Murli Dhar residents of village Linderpur, Jaggu resident of Linderpur, pargana Boodpur, Jaswant Singh, Pradhan Gram Sabha Jheeran, pargana Boodpur Rohtash Singh Pradhan Gram Sabha Changipur, and Bahai Singh, Pradhan Gram Sabha Umra Bujurg, Pargana Boodpur, district Bijnor. Solely relying upon their statements the Naib Tahsildar made his report acting upon which the Tahsildar passed the order rejecting Chandan Singh's prayer for a certificate that he being a Bhuiyar belonged to a scheduled caste. Likewise the report of the Supervisor Kanungo dated 9th Oct., 1979 mentioned that in his Tahsil no member of Bhuiyar community resided and on the basis of that report the prayer made by Rishi Ram for the requisite cfertificate was refused by the Tahsildar. 5. So far as Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981 filed by Zila Bhuiyar Jati Sudhar Sabha and others is concerned, the respondents denied that any person belonging to Bhuiyar community was being harassed in the manner alleged in the writ petition. They did not admit that families belonging to scheduled castes were residing in the Development Block Noorpur. According to them it is only the members belonging to Bhayar community who were Hindu Julahas by caste, resided in Tashil Dhampur and that no member belonging to Bhuiyar scheduled caste community resided there. In this connection they relied upon the reports of the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 3rd Aug., 1979. Copies of the reports have been filed as Annexures-C.A. IV and C.A.V. to the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981. In this connection they relied upon the reports of the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 3rd Aug., 1979. Copies of the reports have been filed as Annexures-C.A. IV and C.A.V. to the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981. According to Annexure-C. A. IV, which is the report from Tahsildar Dhampur, only 17 and 21 families of Bhayaras (Hindu Julahas) who were different from Bhuiyar resided in villages Puraini Abdul Rahmanpur and Jheeran their total population was 103 and 142 respectively, and that Bhuiyars did not reside in Tahsil Dhampur. Aforesaid report made by the Tahsildar was endorsed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhampur on the same day (Annexure-C. A. V. to the counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981). In para. 16 of the counter-affidavit the respondent denied that any instructions had been issued either by the District Magistrate, Bijnor or the Zila Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Bijnor either to their subordinate staff or to the Principals of various Educational Institutions to stop providing educational facilities to Bhuiyar scheduled caste students. The Principals of various Educational Institutions, on the other hand, had been advised to provide all educational facilities to all eligible Bhuiyar Scheduled Caste students possessing certificates from the Tashildar concerned. Accordingly the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981 are not entitled to the reliefs claimed by them. 6. On behalf of the respondents, it is not disputed that Bhuiyars have been enlisted as a scheduled caste community under the "provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Ac, 1956. They, however, contend that Bhayars living in the district of Bijnor belong to a caste different from that of Bhuiyars. The standard of living of Bhayars who generally marry within their own caste and do not dine with other scheduled caste communities is definitely higher than that of persons belonging to scheduled caste communities. They refuted the suggestion made on behalf of the petitioners that Bhayars and Bhuiyars are one and the same or that Bhayar is another name of Bhuiyars in the same way as Bhaman is another name for Brahmins. 7. It cannot be disputed that rejection of a claim made by a particular person that he belongs to a particular scheduled caste community has a great repurcussion on his career. 7. It cannot be disputed that rejection of a claim made by a particular person that he belongs to a particular scheduled caste community has a great repurcussion on his career. The request for such certificate has to be dealt with by the authorities concerned fairly and objectively and not in a casual manner. The instructions in this regard issued by the State Government, contained in Annexure-C. A. 1 filed on behalf of the respondents in Writ Petition No. 3612 of 1980, clearly indicate that the State Government attaches considerable importance to deal with such applications. According to these instructions the district officers shall, on receiving application for scheduled caste certificates, carefully scrutinise the applicant's claim and if he entertains any doubt in respect of the validity of the caste, he should question the claimant closely on his origin, place of residence, caste affinity and customs before granting him the certificate applied for. These instructions, in our opinion, clearly imply that the applicant for a schedule caste certificate has to be given a fair opportunity to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority takes a decision to reject his request for such certificate. Annexure-C. A. 2 to the counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 3612 of 1980 further shows that realising the implications of refusal to grant or granting a certificate to persons claiming themselves to be belonging to Bhuiyar community, the' District Magistrate, Bijnor issued instructions to all the Tahsildars stating that whenever a person makes an application for obtaining a certificate that he belongs to Bhuiyar community, the Tahsildar must before accepting the prayer get proper inquiries made and on receipt of the report from the enquiry officer he should before taking a decision inform the claimant about it. This also implies that before making an order rejecting a prayer for a certificate made by the applicant the Tahsildar has to inform the applicant about the result of the enquiry, so as to enable him to meet that report and to take steps to satisfy the Tahsildar about his claim. This also implies that before making an order rejecting a prayer for a certificate made by the applicant the Tahsildar has to inform the applicant about the result of the enquiry, so as to enable him to meet that report and to take steps to satisfy the Tahsildar about his claim. Apart from what follows from the aforementioned Government Order and the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor, we are of opinion that in dealing with the applications for certificate that the applicant belongs to a scheduled caste the concerned authority has to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice which necessarily implies an opportunity to the claimant to meet a report adverse to him and to substantiate his claim by producing material if it became necessary to do so. 8. According to the respondents whereas Bhayars are Hindu Julahas (weavers), Bhuiyars are Hindus of Non-Aryan origin and that there is nothing to show that they carry on the profession of Julahas (weavers). It may be that as claimed by the respondents, D. O. letter dated 20th Dec., 1978 issued by Government of India (Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981), identifying weavers as Bhuiyars was merely a suggestive list based on the report of the working group on scheduled castes and other backward classes, nonetheless it goes to show that aforementioned study revealed that the community of weavers which was a scheduled caste community was in some parts of the country known as Bhuiyars. It means that according to said study like Bhayars, Bhuiyars are also Julahas. In these circumstances, there is reason to think that the community identified by the respondents as Bhayaras (Hindu Julahas) is the same as the community of Bhuiyars, and the case of the petitioners that it is because of dialectic differences that the word 'Bhuiyar' is sometime pronounced as 'Bhayar' has substance. This belief is further strengthened by the fact that the report of the Tashildar Dhampur dated 3rd Aug., 1979 (Annexure- C.A. 4 to the counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981) which shows that marriages are known to have taken place amongst Bhayars, Koreriyas and Kabirpanthis. The latter two communities are, according to the extract of list of identified occupations of scheduled castes prepared by the Government of India, are scheduled caste communities whose occupation is that of weavers. 9. The latter two communities are, according to the extract of list of identified occupations of scheduled castes prepared by the Government of India, are scheduled caste communities whose occupation is that of weavers. 9. Statements of Khyali Singh, Babu Ram, Murlidhar, Jaggu, Jaswant Singh, Rohtash Singh and Bahai Singh on which the report of Naib Tahsildar that petitioners Chandan Singh and Rishi Ram belonged to Bhayar community which is different from that of Bhuiyars, is based, are to be found in Annexure-C. A. 3 to the counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 3612 of 1980. Khyali Singh, Babu Ram and Murlidhar are residents of village Linderpur; they merely state that in their village there were about 20 families of Bhayar Julahas who are Hindus. People of that caste also resided in eight other villages in the district including village Noorpur. Bhayars marry only amongst themselves and do not inter-marry in other scheduled caste communities. Their standard of living was higher than that of scheduled caste communities. They also went on to say that in their area no family belonging to Bhuiyar community resided. Likewise Jaswant Singh Pradhan merely stated that in village Jheeran there were 15-20 families of Bhayar Julahas and that the members of Bhuiyar community did not reside in his village. Members of this community did not marry amongst other Harijans and are not on dining terms with them. Even though these witnesses assert that Bhuiyars are different from Bhayars, the criteria for determining as to whether a person is a bhuiyar or a Bhayar is not discernible from their statements. There is nothing in their statements to show as to whether or not, the claim made by the two petitioners, namely, Chandan Singh and Rishi Ram, that they are Bhuiyars is correct. Jaggu is another resident of village Linderpur who stated that he belonged to Bhayar community and that the members of his community married within the community itself. Bhayars did not marry amongst Harijans and did not inter-dine with them either. He, however, admitted that some persons of his community also call themselves Bhuiyars. If at all the statement of this witness goes to support the petitioner's case that in that area Bhayars are also known as Bhuiyaras and that they may well be persons belonging to one and the same community. He, however, admitted that some persons of his community also call themselves Bhuiyars. If at all the statement of this witness goes to support the petitioner's case that in that area Bhayars are also known as Bhuiyaras and that they may well be persons belonging to one and the same community. Merely because the members of a particular scheduled caste community do not marry amongst and interdine with other scheduled caste communities, outside their caste, it does not mean that they do not belong to a scheduled caste community. Further there is nothing in the statements of the above mentioned persons regarding the community to which the two petitioners, namely, Chandan Singh and Rishi Ram belonged. Similar are the statements of Rohtash Singh, Pradhan of village Changipur and Bahai Singh, Pradhan of village Umra Bujurg. Their statements also do not go to show as to whether axe not the two petitioners, namely, Chandan Singh and Rishi Ram belong to Bhuiyar community. On the basis of the statements made by aforementioned persons the Naib Tahsildar recorded the following findings : - 1. The standard of living of Bhayar Julahas was higher than that of the members of scheduled caste communities; 2. They dined and married amongst members of their own community and not with the members of any other scheduled caste community; and 3. The members of Bhayar community have started calling themselves as Bhuiyars, and concluded that the certificates prayed for by the petitioners could not be granted. 10. In our opinion, none of the reasons stated by the Nib Tahsildar can, as such, be considered to be apt for concluding that Bhayars cannot be treated to be as belonging to the scheduled caste described in the schedule as Bhuiyars. It is not necessary that there should be inter-dining and inter-marriages, amongst members belonging to different scheduled caste communities. As a matter of fact, it is well known that customs and traditions of various scheduled caste communities with great fervour limit such matters to their own community. A person would not cease to be member of a particular scheduled caste community merely because persons belonging to his community do not interdine or inter-marry with other scheduled caste communities. As a matter of fact, it is well known that customs and traditions of various scheduled caste communities with great fervour limit such matters to their own community. A person would not cease to be member of a particular scheduled caste community merely because persons belonging to his community do not interdine or inter-marry with other scheduled caste communities. Likewise, merely because with the passage of time general standard of living of a particular scheduled caste community has improved and has become better than that of other scheduled caste communities, it does not mean that such community ceases to be a scheduled caste community. Moreover, there is nothing in the report of the Naib Tahsildar to indicate that he at any stage applied his mind to the question with regard to the particular community to which the two petitioners, namely, Chandan Singh and Rishi Ram, belonged. He did not go into the question as to whether or not the two petitioners were Bhuiyars (caste included in the relevant schedule). The certificate prayed for by the two petitioners could also not be rejected merely on a generalisation that Bhuiyars and Bhayaras are not the same communities without finding identity of the community to which they belonged. 11. We further find that before rejecting the applications of the petitioners the relevant reports of the Naib Tahsildar and the Supervisor Kanungo were not brought to the notice of the two petitioners and they were not afforded any opportunity to meet the same and to substantiate their claim for the requisite certificates. This was in contravention of the clear implications of the Government order and the directions issued by District Magistrate, Bijnor (Annexure-C. A. 1 and C. A. 2 to the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 3612 of 1980) and as such also the order rejecting the petitioners' applications for requisite certificates cannot be sustained. Although we have indicated that the material on the record goes to support petitioners' claim that Bhayars and Bhuiyars are the same, we have refrained from expressing any final opinion on the same. It will be for the district authorities to, if it becomes necessary to do so, closely scrutinise the matter and to record its findings on relevant material. Of course, the respondents must before rejecting petitioners' applications for certificates, afford them a reasonable opportunity of substantiating their respective cases. 12. It will be for the district authorities to, if it becomes necessary to do so, closely scrutinise the matter and to record its findings on relevant material. Of course, the respondents must before rejecting petitioners' applications for certificates, afford them a reasonable opportunity of substantiating their respective cases. 12. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition No. 3612 of 1980 succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the Tahsildar dated 9th Nov., 1979 and 9th Oct., 1979 rejecting the applications of the petitioners for certificates that they belong to Bhuiyar community which is a scheduled caste community are quashed and the respondents are directed to decide the two applications afresh and in accordance with law. 13. So far as Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981 is concerned, the respondents do not seem to contest that Bhuiyar is a scheduled caste community. They have denied they are harassing the members of that community in any manner or that any instruction has been issued to the Principals of various educational institutions and other subordinate authorities to deny scheduled caste facilities to members of Bhuiyar community. Of course, where any Principal or authority proposes to withdraw a facility available to a person as belonging to Bhuiyar community on the ground that he does not belong to such a community, he will necessarily have to take such steps in accordance with law and afford (he concerned person an opportunity to meet and explain the reason why it is being said that he does not belong to such community. In the circumstances, no question of issuing any writ or direction prayed for in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 1981 arises at this stage. That petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. 14. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.