J. ESWARA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the petitioner challenged the election of the fourth respondent as a member of the Karnataka legislative assembly at the general elections held on 26-11-1994. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the declaration made by the 2nd respondent-returning officer entitling the fourth respondent to contest in the reserved constituency as a scheduled castes candidate is null and void. He further prays that an enquiry into the issuance of a false caste certificate in favour of the fourth respondent may be directed. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: ( 3 ) SIRSI-SIDDAPUR constituency No. 168 is reserved to the scheduled castes, for election to the 10th Karnataka legislative assembly at the general elections held on 26-11-1994. The petitioner and the fourth respondent filed nominations as representing the Karnataka congress party and janatadal party respectively. The fifth respondent filed his nomination on behalf of the bharatiya janata party. These nominations were accepted and after contest, the second respondent declared the fourth respondent as elected. ( 4 ) THE declaration of the election of the fourth respondent is challenged by the petitioner, mainly on the ground that the 'moger' community to which the fourth respondent belonged, does not fall under the category of scheduled castes but falls under the category of 'most backward and other backward classes'. It is his further case that the issuance of the caste certificate by the third respondent-tahsildar in favour of the fourth respondent is not in accordance with law as it was issued without holding an enquiry. According to the petitioner, the Karnataka gazette of uttara kannada district does not include 'moger' community among the scheduled castes. The petitioner further submits that the caste certificate was issued by the third respondent on the directions of the first respondent and the complaint of the petitioner was ignored by the scrutiny officer. The representation made by the petitioner to the chief election commissioner against the action of the second respondent was not considered. He, therefore, contends that a detailed enquiry ought to have been conducted before the caste certificate was issued in favour of the fourth respondent. The representation made by the petitioner to the chief election commissioner against the action of the second respondent was not considered. He, therefore, contends that a detailed enquiry ought to have been conducted before the caste certificate was issued in favour of the fourth respondent. ( 5 ) IT is the further case of the petitioner that the 'moger'community people belonging to south canara and kollegal taluk of mysore district only are to be treated as scheduled castes, as per the promulgation Order of the president of India in the year 1950. The petitioner also referred to the reports of chinnappa reddy commission on scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other backward classes, in support of his contention that the fourth respondent belongs to a most backward community and not to a scheduled castes. ( 6 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 contested the petition by filing written statements. The second respondent filed written statements on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is their plea that the petition is not maintainable. They deny that the tahsildar issued a false certificate in favour of the fourth respondent. 'moger' community is treated as a scheduled castes under the central government Order No. Law 58 lcr 77, dated 27-7-1977 and as per scheduled castes and scheduled tribes orders (Amendment) act, 1976 and hence the 4th respondent belongs to scheduled castes. The caste certificate was issued by the tahsildar after making a thorough enquiry. ( 7 ) THE fourth respondent in his written statement also took the plea that the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community which is included in the list of scheduled castes in the presidential Order issued under articles 341 and 342 of the constitution of India. If the grievance of the petitioner is that 'moger' community to which the fourth respondent belongs was incorrectly included in the schedule to the Amendment Act of 1976, he has to seek his relief elsewhere. ( 8 ) ARISING out of the respective pleas of the parties, the following issues were framed: "1. Whether the moger (community) caste of uttara kannada district, belongs to a reserved category? 2. ( 8 ) ARISING out of the respective pleas of the parties, the following issues were framed: "1. Whether the moger (community) caste of uttara kannada district, belongs to a reserved category? 2. Whether the tahsildar of sirsi has conducted an enquiry before issuing a certificate to the 4th respondent to contest the election and whether the said certificate is invalid for the reason that it was issued at the instance of the deputy commissioner of karwar? 3. Whether the election petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the election petition is not maintainable for not having filed the declaration made by the returning officer"? ( 9 ) ON his behalf, the petitioner examined himself as p. w. 1 and two other witnesses. P. w. 1 stated that the fourth respondent secured 26,758 votes and was declared elected to the Karnataka legislative assembly at the election conducted on 26-11-1994. The fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community which comes under backward caste and is not a scheduled castes and therefore he complained to the tahsildar that the fourth respondent does not belong to a scheduled castes. Ex. P-1 notification dated 4-3-1977 issued by the State of Karnataka would show that 'moger' caste is classified as backward caste at item 89 marked as ex. P-l a. Except in south canara in mysore district, 'moger' caste has been classified as a backward caste. Ex. P-2 notification dated 25-7-1994 would reveal the same. So also exs. P-3 and p-4 would also show that 'moger' is not a scheduled castes and that he objected to the nomination filed by the fourth respondent. ( 10 ) P. W. 2, a social worker stated that the petitioner raised an objection to the nomination filed by the fourth respondent. 'moger' community does not fall under schedule category and it falls under backward class. P. w. 3-a social worker, was also one of the contestants at the election as an independent candidate. He supports the contention of the petitioner that he raised an objection to the nomination filed by the fourth respondent and he too raised an oral objection. People belonging to 'moger' community do not belong to scheduled castes. ( 11 ) RESPONDENT 4 besides examining himself as r. w. 2 examined the assistant commissioner of sirsi sub-division at the relevant period as r. w. 1. People belonging to 'moger' community do not belong to scheduled castes. ( 11 ) RESPONDENT 4 besides examining himself as r. w. 2 examined the assistant commissioner of sirsi sub-division at the relevant period as r. w. 1. R. w. 1 deposed that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community and that the said community is a scheduled castes. He further deposed that no one raised objections regarding the acceptance of nominations of respondents 4 and 5' by him. He denied the suggestion that in the caste certificate issued by the tahsildar, the community of the fourth respondent is 'mogera' and not 'moger'. ( 12 ) R. W. 2 deposed that he belongs to 'moger' caste and the said community is a scheduled castes. The certified copy of the caste certificate is marked as ex. P-9 and is admitted to be his. He denied the suggestion that the caste mentioned in ex. P-9 is 'mogera' and asserted that it is 'moger' and that there is no community known as 'mogera'. Issue No. I: ( 13 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that 'moger' community of uttara kannada district is not a scheduled castes and does not fall within the reserved category. In support of his contention, the petitioner relies on the karuataka state gazette relating to uttara kannada district, published by the government of karnataka, marked as ex. P-4, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes of uttara kannada district are enumerated at page 236 of the gazette, marked as ex. P-4 (a ). The submission was that 'moger' community does not find a place among the scheduled castes and hence the petitioner does not belong to a scheduled castes. The respondents rely on ex. P-8-manual of election law vol. I as on the first march, 1991 published by the government of India, in which 'moger' community is mentioned at item 78 of the schedule (english) part vii relating to karnataka, appended to constitution (scheduled castes) Order, 1950 (part iii, rules and orders under the constitution) marked as ex. P-8 (a ). In the printed official gazette of the government of India 'moger' is mentioned in item 78. In the hindi version of the schedule at page 145 of ex. P-8, 'moger' is mentioned at item 78. P-8 (a ). In the printed official gazette of the government of India 'moger' is mentioned in item 78. In the hindi version of the schedule at page 145 of ex. P-8, 'moger' is mentioned at item 78. ( 14 ) THE official publication of the gazette by the government of India should be taken as representing the correct schedule appended to the constitution (scheduled cestes) Order, 1950 made in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of article 341 of the constitution of India by the president. The schedule applies to the entire State of Karnataka and is not limited to any part of the state or to a district in the stafr 'moger' community is included in the scheduled castes for ' e entire State of karnataka. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on Karnataka state gazette in ex. P-4 and ex. P-4 (a) cannot be accepted. Item 78 is not confined to any particular area in Karnataka state and extends to the entire state ( 15 ) REALISING that the petition has no legs to stand, in the State of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised a new contention during the course of arguments. He contends that the 4th respondent does not belong to 'moger' community but belongs to 'mogera' caste which is not a scheduled castes included in the schedule to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes orders (Amendment) act, 1976. This contention is totally contrary to the pleadings, wherein, the petitioner asserted that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community in various paragraphs of the petition and filed a copy of the caste certificate of the fourth respondent certified as true translated copy of the original as annexure-a3 to the petition, in which, it was certified that the fourth respondent belongs to the 'moger' community. In his evidence as p. w. 1, the petitioner repeatedly asserted that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community. P. w. 2 also admitted in cross-examination that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community. R. w. 1, the assistant commissioner who was the returning officer deposed that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community. In his evidence as p. w. 1, the petitioner repeatedly asserted that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community. P. w. 2 also admitted in cross-examination that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community. R. w. 1, the assistant commissioner who was the returning officer deposed that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the fourth respondent arguedthat no contention contrary to the pleadings can be permitted, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there could be no estoppel so far as the caste status of a person is concerned, as the same has to be conclusively proved. ( 17 ) IN support of the contention that admission is not conclusive proof, the learned counsel for the petition relied on K. S. Srinivasan v Union of India , in which it was held that an admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted, though it may in certain circumstances, operate as an estoppel. ( 18 ) IT is now well-settled that in election petition pleading shave to be precise, specific and unambiguous and if election petition does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected in limine, as held in Bhagwati Prasad Dixti "ghorewala" v Rajeev gandhi. The specific plea of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community, but the said community is not a scheduled castes in uttara kannada district as found in Karnataka state gazette ex. P-4. 'moger' community is included in the schedule of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes orders (Amendment) ACT of 1976, which alone hap to be looked into for the purpose of the general elections to state assemblies. It has therefore to be held that the election petition did not disclose the cause of action and is liable to be dismissed in limine. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the fourth respondent belongs to 'mogera' community which is not a scheduled castes. He produced a copy of the caste certificate of the fourth respondent translated by the deputy director in the directorate of translations, government of karnataka, certified to be true english translation of the caste certificate (xerox copy) in kannada, along with an application la. Vi for permission to produce the translated copy of annexure-a3. He produced a copy of the caste certificate of the fourth respondent translated by the deputy director in the directorate of translations, government of karnataka, certified to be true english translation of the caste certificate (xerox copy) in kannada, along with an application la. Vi for permission to produce the translated copy of annexure-a3. This application cannot be allowed for the reason that the translation is made from a xerox copy of the caste certificate. The possibility of errors in exactly copying cannot be ruled out. According to the translated copy now sought to be filed, the community of the fourth respondent is 'mogera'. When annexure-a3, was shown to two counsel present in court, one of them ms. Revati read it as 'mogera', whereas Sri balakrishna shastry, the other counsel read it as 'moger'. The copy of the caste certificate annexed to the election petition, which was certified to be the true translation of the original by the petitioner's counsel mentioned the community of the fourth respondent as 'moger'. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore cannot be accepted that the community of the petitioner is 'mogera' and is not 'moger'. ( 20 ) IT is also to be noted that no issue whether the fourth respondent does not belong to 'moger' community arose, as there was no such plea by the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect is totally outside the scope of the issues. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the word 'mogera' found in the caste certificate cannot be read as 'moger' and no evidence can be admitted contrary to ex. P-9. In support of the said contention he relies on Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel and others v Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills Limited. It is well-settled law that extrinsic evidence cannot be admitted for construction of a document to remove the defect of vagueness or uncertainity and the provisions of Section 93 of the evidence ACT are clear on this point. It was the petitioner himself that took the plea and deposed along with p. w. 2, asserting that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community and therefore there is no substance in this contention. It was the petitioner himself that took the plea and deposed along with p. w. 2, asserting that the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community and therefore there is no substance in this contention. ( 22 ) THE contentions based on a. Chinnappa V. Venkatamuni and others and Nityanand Sharma and another v State of Bihar and others, that the court has no power to declare a particular community or tribe or caste as a scheduled castes or scheduled tribes by relying on synonyms as equivalent to the tribes or castes specified in the schedule, have no relevance, as the fourth respondent belongs to 'moger' community and there is no question of declaring any other name as a synonym. So also the decisions in Srish Kumar Choudhury v State of Tripura and others and Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v Additional Commissioner, tribal development and others , are not relevant as it is not necessary for this court to enquire whether 'moger' community includes 'mogera' etc. ( 23 ) THE question of caste of a person is a question of fact as held in Laxman Siddappa Naik v Kattimani Chandrappa Jampanna and others. Mere suspicion is not sufficient to dislodge the evidence in the case which clearly shows the caste of the fourth respondent as 'moger'. I have therefore no hesitation in holding on issue No. I that the 'moger' community, to which the fourth respondent belongs, is a scheduled castes mentioned at item 78 of the schedule in part vii relating to Karnataka in the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes orders (Amendment) act, 1976. Issue No. Ii: ( 24 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tahsildar did not conduct an enquiry before issuing the caste certificate to the fourth respondent and therefore the certificate is invalid on that ground, as well as on the ground that it was issued at the instance of the deputy commissioner, karwar. The learned government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the tahsildar is the officer competent to issue the caste certificate and hence the certificate is valid. It was further submitted that the deputy commissioner is competent to issue necessary directions and guidelines to the tahsildar which will be followed while considering applications for grant of certificate. It was further submitted that the deputy commissioner is competent to issue necessary directions and guidelines to the tahsildar which will be followed while considering applications for grant of certificate. Apart from deposing that objections were raised regarding the caste certificate before the returning officer, p. ws. 1 and 2 have not produced any documentary evidence. R. w. 1-the returning officer as well as r. w. 2 denied that any such objection was raised. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, except the interested evidence of p. ws. 1 and 2, it has to be held that the caste certificate was not challenged before the returning officer and was duly accepted by him, after verification. The caste certificate issued in favour of the 4th respondent, being an official document, has to be held to be validly issued, in the absence of any evidence to the contra. Issue'no. Iii : ( 25 ) NO arguments were advanced in support of the contention that the election petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As the only material issue relates to the question as to whether 'moger' community is a scheduled castes, non-joinder of other contestants as respondents in the petition will not entail the dismissal of the petition. Issue No. Iv: ( 26 ) NO arguments were advanced on the question of maintainability of the election petition for not having filed the declaration made by the returning officer. The factum of declaration of the result of the election is not in dispute. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the declaration made by the election officer is filed, as it will not affect the maintainability of the election petition. ( 27 ) IN view of my finding on issue No. I holding that 'moger'community to which the fourth respondent belongs, is a scheduled castes mentioned at item 78 in the schedule vii relating to Karnataka state to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes orders (Amendment) act, 1976, the election petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- with two sets. One set of costs awarded to respondents 1 to 3 and another set of costs awarded to the fourth respondent. No costs so far as respondent 5 is concerned. --- *** --- .