Judgment 1. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board being aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 8.7.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 284 of 2003 (Subha Shini & another V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) [reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 601 ] has filed his appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The short facts leading to filing of the writ application are that an advertisement was published for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S./B.H.M.S. courses for the sessions 2002-2003. Both the writ petitioners applied under Scheduled Tribe quota. Admit cards were issued and in the written test conducted on 11.7.2002 both the petitioners succeeded and thereafter in the counselling held on 24.8.2002 they were declared successful. It appears that in the meanwhile the State Government took a decision to reduce reservation quota from seven percent to one percent of the Scheduled Tribe candidates, therefore fresh counselling was held on 18.10.2002. Each of the petitioners was required to furnish a fresh certificate. But as some doubt crept in, the Controller of Examination of appellant no. 1 required the writ petitioners to show cause till 6.11.2002 explaining the discrepancy in their caste certificate. The parents of the petitioners filed their show cause stating therein that father of the petitioner was residing in Gumla district and on his application the caste certificate to both the writ petitioners by the competent authority was issued. It was however also submitted that the issuing authority because of his lapse could not mention the permanent address of the writ petitioners as Bhabhua district. The Controller of Examination being dissatisfied required the District Magistrate, Aurangabad to verify the genuineness of the caste certificate of the petitioners. The District Magistrate in his turn asked the District Welfare Officer, Aurangabad to verify and report. The said officer directed the Subdivisional Officer to make an enquiry. The Subdivisional Officer obtained the report from the Circle Officer and thereafter required the mother of the petitioners to submit the caste certificates issued by the Subdivisional Officer, Bhabhua. The mother of the petitioners instead of producing the certificate brought certain evidence and certificates in support of their claims relating to their status that they belong to Gond caste and that they were permanent residents of village Akhlashpur, Bhabhua. The Subdivisional Officer however wrote to the mother of the petitioners cancelling the caste certificates issued to the petitioners treating them as Gond. The Subdivisional Officer however wrote to the mother of the petitioners cancelling the caste certificates issued to the petitioners treating them as Gond. The Subdivisional Officer also informed the District Magistrate, Aurangabad that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioners be cancelled and the Controller of Examination be informed accordingly. 3. Being aggrieved by the action of the Subdivisional Officer and the other authorities the petitioners had come to this Court inter alia submitting that the caste certificates could not be cancelled on the ground that it was issued by different authorities. It is submitted that father and mother of the petitioners are posted at two different places, therefore, they were justified in obtaining caste certificates from different places. It was pointed out that if the father and mother of the petitionershave been accepted as members of the Gond caste then their offsprings automatically would become Gondi.e. Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners also relied on number of documents in support of their writ application. The case was hotly contested by the respondents in the writ. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the earlier judgment of this Court the learned Single Judge observed that the documents on which reliance was placed by the petitioners were relating back to 1913 and as the other certificates were also showing that the petitioners parents and other relations belong to Gond caste, their certificates could not be cancelled in an unceremonious manner. Learned Single Judge observed that flimsy and superficial enquiry was made by the District Magistrate, Bhabua and as the cancellation of his certificate was bad, the order contained in Annexure 3 and the consequential orders contained in Annexures 1 and 2 cannot be allowed to stand. Learned Single Judge therefore set aside the orders and observed that the appellants may further proceeded to pass appropriate orders and take follow up actions as if these annexures never existed. Learned Single Judge however granted liberty to the District Magistrate, Bhabhua to get the full dressed enquiry instituted and after getting the matter enquired into at length with the participation of the petitioners after due notice to them, to past a detailed appropriate order holding or deciding that to what community, caste or tribe the petitioners belong. 4. Before any enquiry could be made by the District Magistrate the appellants have filed this appeal. 5. 4. Before any enquiry could be made by the District Magistrate the appellants have filed this appeal. 5. On 26.8.2003, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties we opined that a fresh full-fledged enquiry be conducted in the manner to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the respondents belong to scheduled tribe or not. This Court directed the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna to hold an enquiry and submit a report to this Court within one month from the date of appearance of the parties before him. The parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on 1.9.2003. The matter was again taken up on 14.10.2003. The report of the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna was submitted before the Court. A copy of the same was supplied to the Additional Advocate General II who in his turn was required to serve the copy of the same to the appellants and the private respondents. The matter was thereafter heard at length. The report which now forms part of this record has been challenged by the respondents-writ petitioners. 6. It would be noteworthy that the learned Commissioner gave due opportunity of hearing to the parties, received documents filed by them and thereafter recorded the finding against the interest of the writ petitioners. The learned Commissioner referred to all the documents filed by the parties and observed that the documents on which reliance was placed by the respondents were in fact the certified copies and when the same was compared with the original records an interpolation was clearly floating on the surface. He observed that the question that the writ petitioners are Gond or Gour would well be seen in the light of the documents. He also observed that if a point was placed on the letters Ga then Gour would become Gond. He found that in the original records the writ petitioners ancestors were shown as Gour and therefore subsequent certificate issued in their favour or self serving statement made by the ancestors and relations of the petitioners would not help them. 7. The Commissioner held that contesting respondents Ms Subhasini Kumari and Ms Mrinalini Kumari do not belong to Gond caste. 8. Armed with this report the appellants submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside and the petitioners examination be cancelled. As observed earlier the contesting respondents have filed their objections against the report. 7. The Commissioner held that contesting respondents Ms Subhasini Kumari and Ms Mrinalini Kumari do not belong to Gond caste. 8. Armed with this report the appellants submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside and the petitioners examination be cancelled. As observed earlier the contesting respondents have filed their objections against the report. Along with the report number of documents have been filed. The photo copies annexed with these objections were not sufficient enough to disclose that whether the petitioners were shown as Gour or Gond, therefore, we asked the learned counsel for the respondents to produce the originals. We have also gone through the originals. 9. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has taken great pains to take us through each and every documents to contend that right in 1913 the petitioners ancestors were shown as Gond and after the other relations of the petitioners were also accepted as Gond by the community. The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner deserve to be rejected and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Countering this argument it was submitted by the learned counsel for- the appellants that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was that the enquiry made by the District Magistrate was flimsy and cavalier and for that reason the learned Single Judge set aside the order cancelling his certificate and granted liberty to the authorities to have an enquiry de novo. According to him, if the enquiry has already been held and the petitioners are not found to be Gond caste then in this letters patent appeal the correctness or impropriety of this finding cannot be challenged. It is also submitted by them that assuming the appellants had not filed any appeal and a report against the interest of the contesting respondents was received then the respondents were required to challenge the report in duly constituted proceedings or in any case were required to establish their status in a title suit. He submits that in accordance with the orders passed by he learned Single Judge and the orders passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. enquiry has already been held, therefore, this Court must not allow the respondents to challenge the enquiry report in this very proceeding. 11. He submits that in accordance with the orders passed by he learned Single Judge and the orders passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. enquiry has already been held, therefore, this Court must not allow the respondents to challenge the enquiry report in this very proceeding. 11. It would also be necessary to note that the learned counsel for the contesting respondents has placed strong reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of the State of Bihar and ors. V/s. Sumit Anand (L.P.A. No. 699 of 2002) decided on 27.6.2002 upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.5.2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 439 of 2001 (Sumit Anand V/s. State of Bihar) [Reported in 2002(3) PLJR 393 ], there he has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1407 of 1990 (Anjani Kumar V/s. State of Bihar) decided on 34.10.1990. 12. We have gone through the said judgments and must immediately observe that the said judgments were passed on the particular facts of the matters. In the mater of Sumit Anand it was found as a fact that the parents of the petitioners belong to the Gond caste and as they were so recognized earlier not only by the community but certificate were issued to them under the directions of the High Court, it was held, that if the parents belong to a particular caste then offsprings would also belong to the same caste. The judgment in the matter of Anjani Kumar also proceeds on the special facts of the case. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vashistha V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., SLP (Civil) no. 19188 of 1998. In the said matter the state authorities did not specifically plead the defence that the appellant before the Supreme Court was Gour and not Gond. The Supreme Court, thus, observed that in absence of any indication in the caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate that it was issued on the basis of 1991 Notification, the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court could not be relied upon. 13. The facts of the present case are totally different. In the present matter before the petitioners could secure final admission a dispute arose, that to which particular caste/ community the petitioners belong. 13. The facts of the present case are totally different. In the present matter before the petitioners could secure final admission a dispute arose, that to which particular caste/ community the petitioners belong. Even before the High Court before the Single Bench in the counter affidavit it was specifically contended that the petitioners do not belong to Gond community. The learned Single Judge has also not observed or held that the petitioners belong to Gond community. The learned Single Judge has observed that as the enquiry was flimsy and cavalier in nature the certificate granted in favour of the writ petitioners could not be cancelled. The learned Single Judge, however, granted liberty to the District Magistrate to hold a full dressed enquiry into the matter and record the finding regarding the status of the writ petitioners. If that be so. the petitioners contention that they belong to Gond community, therefore, the certificate could not be cancelled, cannot be accepted. A full dressed enquiry has already been made. The findings undisputediy go against the interest of the writ petitioners. The propriety demands that a Letters Patent Court should not enter into arena of factual dispute for the first time. It would also be necessary to see that the original records of cadestral survey and khatian were inspected by the learned Commissioner. He has observed in his report that the name of the great grand father of the contesting respondents was mentioned as Nirmal Goud (Gaur) and the certified copies shows his name as Nirmal Gond. He has also given other reasons after going through the original records. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that we must not enter into the factual disputes, start comparing the documents and record our findings in relation to the status of the petitioners. It would even otherwise be also improper on our part to look into a question which was never raised by the learned Single Judge. In fact, the report of the Commissioner is an execution of order passed by the learned Single Judge and a direction given by us. 14. The Learned Single Judge while quashing Annexures 1, 2 and 3 issued directions that the Controller of Examinations, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board may further proceed to pass appropriate orders and take follow up action as if these annexures never existed. 14. The Learned Single Judge while quashing Annexures 1, 2 and 3 issued directions that the Controller of Examinations, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board may further proceed to pass appropriate orders and take follow up action as if these annexures never existed. As the enquiry report has already been received and according to the report the writ petitioners do not belong to the Scheduled Tribe, even if Annexure-1, 2 and 3 stand quashed, the petitioners now would not be entitled to submit their candidature as Scheduled Tribe candidates. The protection provided by the learned Single Judge now would not be available to the petitioners. 15. We close these proceedings with liberty in favour of the writ petitioners that if advised, they may challenge the report of the Commissioner in duly constituted proceedings or may seek a decree from the competent Court of law in relation to their status. In any case so long as the report of the Commissioner stands and it is not set aside or the petitioners status is not declared they would not be entitled to claim any benefit on the ground or foundation that they belong to Scheduled Tribe. 16. With the modification/clarification/ observation aforesaid this letter patent appeal is disposed of.