JUDGMENT J.N. DUBEY, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.4.1997 of the respondent no. 4, the Personnel and Administrative Officer, Barauni Refinery, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Operator 'D' (Production) Grade IV. 2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Operator 'D' (Production) Grade IV in Barauni Refinery of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 28.6.1996 against the vacancy reserved for scheduled caste candidates. On 9.4.1997 respondent no. 4 terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that he did not belong to scheduled caste category. Feeling aggrieved he has filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent no. 4 was not legally justified in terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste. According to him, petitioner belonged to 'Pan' caste which was included in the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 and the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes List (Modification) Order, 1956. 5. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner had submitted a caste certificate issued to him on 27.9.1993 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh, Patna stating that he belonged to 'Pan' caste which comes in the category of Scheduled Caste. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of the certificate. 6. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the petitioner was not 'Pan' by caste. According to them, he belonged to 'Tanti' caste, which does not come under the Scheduled Caste category. 7. The petitioner apart from filing several documents to prove the genuineness of the caste certificate issued to him by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh, has also filed a copy of the caste certificate issued to him by the District Magistrate, Patna on 19.9.1994 stating that he belonged to 'Pan' caste which comes in the category of Scheduled Caste. On 28.4.1998 petitioner filed his caste certificate issued to him by the District Magistrate, Patna, in this Court. On 13.5.1998 District Magistrate, Patna was directed to examine the genuineness of the said certificate and submit the report. On 22.5.1993 Ms. On 28.4.1998 petitioner filed his caste certificate issued to him by the District Magistrate, Patna, in this Court. On 13.5.1998 District Magistrate, Patna was directed to examine the genuineness of the said certificate and submit the report. On 22.5.1993 Ms. Rajbala Verma District Magistrate, Patna appeared in the Court personally and submitted her enquiry report stating that the petitioner belonged to 'Pan' caste and the certificate issued to him to this effect was genuine. District Magistrate, Patna was directed to file an affidavit on the basis of her enquiry report, which was filed on her behalf on 1.7.1998. The relevant paragraphs of which are quoted below:– "That it is stated that the Caste Certificate in question in favour of the petitioner was issued from the District Welfare Officer, Patna Collectorate, Patna. That it is stated that the aforesaid certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was signed by the then District Magistrate, Patna, Mr. Ramesh Abhishek, I.A.S. That it is further stated that the Certificate in question issued under the signature of the then District Magistrate, Patna, as stated above, was issued on 19.9.1994 vide Serial No. 439 and is on the record of the Register of the Caste Certificate from 3.1.1994 to 29.12.1995 which would be evident from the letter dated 30.6.1998." 8. The report of the District Magistrate, Patna and the affidavit filed on her behalf proves beyond doubt that the petitioner belongs to 'Pan' caste, which comes under Scheduled Caste category and, therefore, his services could not be legally terminated on the ground that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste category. 9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 9.4.1997 of the respondent no. 4 as contained in Annexure 6, is quashed. No order as to costs.