Judgment Sachchidanand Jha, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 10-4-1992 cancelling his appointment on the ground that he is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe and his appointment on a post meant for Scheduled Tribe candidate on the basis of false certificate was illegal. Copy of the said order has been marked Annexure-i to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a Kamar. According to him, Kamar is the same as Lohar or Lohra, which has been declared to be a Scheduled Tribe in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Order (Modification) Act, 1976 so far as the State of Bihar is concerned. According to the respondents, on the other hand, Kamar of Karmakar and Lohar in the Santhal Parganas have been included in the list of backward class (Annexure II) So far as Lohras are concerned, they are a separate community in the Chhotanagpur, declared as Scheduled Tribe. It is not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed after giving show cause notice and enquiry It is also in dispute that the petitioner belongs to Kamar community. The only dispute is whether Kamar is the same as Lohar or Lohra communities. 3. Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution confer power upon the President to specify by public notification the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups thereof as Scheduled Castes or Tribes, as the case may be, in relation to a particular State after consultation with the Governor. The Parliament has been vested with the power to include in or exclude from the list scarified in the notification by making law. Since the instant case relates to Scheduled Tribes, the provisions of Articles 342 may be noticed: 342 (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is State after consultation with the Governor thereof by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribunal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under Clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said Clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. In Bhaiya Lal V/s. Harikishan Singh -- a question arose as to whether Dohar caste could be treated as the same as Chamar caste being a sub-caste thereof. A Constitution Bench of the Court observed as follows: It is thus clear, that in order to determine whether or not a particular caste is scheduled caste within the meaning of Article 341, one has to look at the public notification issued by the President in that behalf. In the present case, the notification refers to Chamar, Jatav or Mochi, and so, in dealing with the question in dispute between the parties, the enquiry which the Election Tribunal can hold is whether or not the appellant is a Chamar, Jatav or Mochi. The plea that though the appellant is not a Chamar as such, he can claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belongs to the Dohar caste which is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste, cannot be accepted. It appears to us that an enquiry of this kind would not be permissible having regard to the provisions contained to Article 341. (Emphasis supplied) In B. Basavalingappa V/s. Munichinnnppa -- , another Constitution Bench decision, the apex Court held: "It is not open to make any modification in the order by producing evidence to show, for example, that though caste A alone is mentioned in the Order, caste B is also part of caste A and therefore, must be deemed to be included in caste A. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to various documents contained in Annexures 17, 18, 20 and 21 in support of his contention that Kamar community is the same as Lohar or Lohra bearing a close affinity with each other. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to various documents contained in Annexures 17, 18, 20 and 21 in support of his contention that Kamar community is the same as Lohar or Lohra bearing a close affinity with each other. Annexure-17 is passage from a book entitled Tribal Festival of Bihar by Ajit K. Singh ; Annexure-18 is also a passage from the book entitled Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India by R.V. Russeli : Annexure-10 is the extract from compendium of the Castes and Ts by Eustace J Kitts and Annexure-2 is the extract from the Bihar District Gazetteer of Santhal Parganas of the year 1965. In Parsram V/s. Shivchand and Ors. -- , their Lordships referred to the aforequoted decisions and held: These judgments are binding on us and we do not therefore think that would be of any use to look into the gazetteers and the glossaries on the Punjab castes and tribes to which reference was made at the Bar to find out whether mochi and chamar in some parts of the State at least the same caste....However, that may be, the question not being open to agitation by evidence and being one the determination of which lies within the exclusive power of the President, it is not for us to examine it and come to a conclusion that if a person was in fact a mochi, he could still claim to belong to the scheduled caste of chamars and be allowed to contest an election on that basis. The question as to whether the Court can issue any direction for treating a particular caste as Scheduled Caste or Tribe has been answered by the Supreme Court in the case of M. N. Mistri and Ors. V/s. Union of India, arising out of the State of Bihar in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5221-5223 of 1983, decided on 12-12-1989 in the following words: It is admitted that in the notification issued by the President in respect of the State of Bihar Namsudra Community and Pod/ Poundra community are not specified as scheduled castes. The only authority which can modify the notification issued originally by the President is the Parliament. this Court cannot issue a writ to make legislation to amend the law treating these two communities as Scheduled Castes in Bihar and other States. 5. The only authority which can modify the notification issued originally by the President is the Parliament. this Court cannot issue a writ to make legislation to amend the law treating these two communities as Scheduled Castes in Bihar and other States. 5. Whether a particular caste or tribe should be specified as scheduled caste or tribe in a particular State depends on consideration of variety of factors. As per the scheme envisaged under Articles 341 and 342, the matter lies within the exclusive domain of the President and/or the Parliament, It is not permissible for the Court to go behind the list of Scheduled Castes or Tribes and enquiry of the nature suggested on behalf of the petitioner. If there had been dispute about the Tribe or Community of the Petitioner, the matter could have been different and the court might have considered issuance of direction to the competent authority to hold enquiry and determine which community he belongs to. However, in the instant case, there being no such dispute, the question as to whether his community, namely, Kamar is the same as Lohar and Lohra for the purpose of reservation in government jobs, although the same is not specified in the list of the scheduled tribes, takes the controversy beyond the pale of jurisdiction of this Court. 6. This application, for the reasons stated above, is dismissed. A.N.Chaturvedi, J. 7 I agree.