Judgment Shashank Kr.Singh, J. 1. All these matters have been listed out of turn in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 17.2.2003 whereby the Supreme Court while refusing to interfere in the order of this court, as the same was an interlocutory order, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. However, the apex court observed that it would be appropriate for the High Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of passing of the order. 2. All these matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the parties. 3. Subrat Prasad is the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. Nos. 6854 of 2002, 14573 of 2001 and 13040 of 2002. The case of the petitioner is that he being the offspring of Nirmala Devi a scheduled caste lady and Chanchal Prasad, Surhi by caste, i.e., an upper caste Hindu and as Nirmala Devi was unmarried at the time of his birth and subsequently after his birth was married to one Karan Harijan in 1982 as to whether the petitioner in view of the decision of the State Government to grant the caste status to such offspring as that of the mother and the petitioner being the child of a scheduled caste mother was not required to be treated as a scheduled caste and as to whether the action of the State authorities in cancelling the caste certificate granted to him as a scheduled caste was bad in law and was required to be quashed,. A further prayer has also been made that all consequential orders be also quashed. 4. The short fact of C.W.J.C. No. 6854/02 is that the petitioner, who applied for admission to the P.M.C.H. in M.S. Orthopaedic course for the Session 2001-2002 on the basis of caste certificate dated 17.2.1994 was not being admitted as the said caste certificate was not being accepted. The petitioner moved this court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 9865/01 and in view of the order of this court he was admitted to the P.M.C.H. in M.S. Orthopaedic course subject to an enquiry regarding genuineness of his caste certificate, which was to be made within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order dated 29.8.2001, which is Annexure-6 to the aforesaid writ application. The enquiry was completed and according to the learned counsel his caste certificate was found to be genuine. 5. However, it is contended that respondent no.3 reported on 1.10.2001 that the petitioner is Surhi by caste. The petitioner challenged the same by filing C.W.J.C. No. 14017 of 2001. The same was dismissed as being premature on 18.10.2001. The petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the same being L.P.A. No. 1351 of 2001. The same has been directed to be placed after disposal of C.W.J.C. No. 14573 of 2001, which has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Circular of the State Government dated 11.12.1985 as being against the law laid down by this court and the Supreme Court of India as well as Hindu Law. As by order dated 2.1.2002. as contained in Annexure-7, the interim order granted in the aforesaid case has been vacated by this court, the petitioner had moved by filing L.P.A. No. 1505 of 2001 by which this court also refused to grant interim relief to the petitioner. As such, he preferred a Special Leave Petition being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6387/02. The same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. 6. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in five writ petitions are as follows: (i) In C.W.J.C. No. 6854 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of cancellation of Caste Certificate, candidature and admission of M.S. (ortho) 2001-2002 contained in Annexures 13, 14 and 15 dated 3.6.2002, 14.6.2002 and 15.6.2002 and further prayer has been made that after cancellation of the same he be allowed to complete his M.S. (Ortho) course. (ii) In C.W.J.C. No. 14573 of 2001, the petitioner, Subrat Prasad, has prayed for quashing the letter dated 11.12.1985 contained in Annexure-4 which is a circular of the State Government. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the aforesaid annexure has been issued in violating the terms of definition of scheduled caste candidates as defined by the Parliament and, as such, excluding the genuine scheduled caste person like the petitioner. The aforesaid Circular has been relied upon by the State for the purpose of cancelling the caste certificate and subsequent admission of the petitioner in M.S. (ortho) course. The aforesaid Circular has been relied upon by the State for the purpose of cancelling the caste certificate and subsequent admission of the petitioner in M.S. (ortho) course. (iii) In C.W.J.C. No. 13040 of 2002, the petitioner, Subrat Prasad, has prayed for quashing the show cause notice/letter dated 18.10.2002 contained in Annexure-16 asking as to why the M.B.B.S. Degree and admission in M.B.B.S. course of the petitioner be not cancelled. (iv) In C.W.J.C. No. 6739 of 2002, the petitioner Kumari Renu and Kumari Swati Shree, have prayed for quashing Annexure-12 dated 17.5.2002 by which caste certificate of petitioner no.1 has been cancelled after holding that both the petitioners are Kurmi. By filing I.A. No. 2787 of 2002, both the petitioners have prayed for quashing the subsequent orders cancelling their caste certificates. (v) In C.W.J.C. No. 5868 of 2002, the petitioners, Kumari Renu and Kumari Swati Shree have prayed for quashing the letter dated 11.12.1985, as contained in Annexure-8, which has been relied upon by the authorities for cancelling their caste certificates and recommendation has been made for lodging the first information report. 7. Virtually, in all the writ applications, the document, which is under challenge, is the Circular of the State Government dated 11.12.1985. A plain reading of the aforesaid Circular or letter, as contained in Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 14573 of 2001 goes to show that the same is only clarification of the earlier letter bearing no.99 dated 3rd March, 1978. The aforesaid letter, which has been issued by the Special Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 11th December, 1985 states that a decision has been taken that offspring of an upper caste Hindu and a scheduled caste mother would be treated as a scheduled caste but now it has come to the knowledge of the State Government that undue benefit of the aforesaid provision was being taken, rather the same was being misused/misutilised and as upper caste Hindu was illegally coercing the scheduled caste lady to bear child without marrying her and thus she was being exploited. As the aforesaid situation was not acceptable to the State Government, as such, a decision has been taken that only offspring of legally married upper caste Hindu with a scheduled caste mother shall be granted the benefit of scheduled caste. 8. As the aforesaid situation was not acceptable to the State Government, as such, a decision has been taken that only offspring of legally married upper caste Hindu with a scheduled caste mother shall be granted the benefit of scheduled caste. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the aforesaid letter is discriminatory inasmuch as if the scheduled caste mother is duly married to the upper caste father the offspring will get the benefit of scheduled caste, though the aforesaid offspring is having the benefit of the guidance of his father. As far as the person like the petitioner is concerned he is offspring of an unmarried scheduled caste mother. He did not get the affection and protection of his father. His unmarried mother faced difficulty in nursing and educating him and after her marriage the petitioner further faced difficulty and now by the aforesaid letter he has been deprived of the benefit of reservation in the scheduled caste category. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is against the definition, which has been given as per the Hindu Law itself. 9. Several judgments and citations have been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. The first judgment relied upon is in the case of Lingappa Goudan and another V/s. Esudasan reported in the Indian Law Reports Vol.XXVII 13 wherein the court has held that the plaintiff could not be regarded as a Hindu by birth and he was, in consequence, not governed by Hindu law and was not entitled to maintenance. However, in the aforesaid judgment it has been held that under the rules laid down by Hindu Law for determining the caste of the offspring of unions between parents belonging to different castes, the Dharma or religious rites applicable to the offspring are those prescribed for the mothers caste. Relying on the aforesaid judgment it has been stated here also that the petitioner being the offspring of a scheduled caste lady has to be declared as a scheduled caste. Relying on the aforesaid judgment it has been stated here also that the petitioner being the offspring of a scheduled caste lady has to be declared as a scheduled caste. Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Mayna Bai and others V/s. Uttaram and others reported in Madras High Court Reports 196 wherein quotation from Vivada Chintamani of Yajnavalkya has been quoted as "A damsels child is one born of an unmarried women; he is considered as the son of his maternal grandsire." This passage clearly recognizes the mother and her son, irregularly begotten, as cognate; meaning thereby that if the girl is married, the child from her becomes the son of the husband otherwise if unmarried he or she being the mothers child. The aforesaid judgment has also been cited for the said purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance in the case of Shyam Sunder V/s. State of Bihar reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 178. Relying on paragraph 31 of the said judgment it has been contended that in the aforesaid paragraph the translation of English version of Yajnavalkya is quoted regarding a damsels child who is one born of unmarried, is considered as son of his maternal grandsire. He has also placed reliance in the case of N.E.Horo V/s. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh reported in A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 1840 showing that once a woman is married to a man she merges her identity in the aforesaid family and becomes a member of the caste of her husband. Paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment has been relied upon wherein it has been held that if the respondent is not a member of Munda tribe by virtue of birth she having been married to a Munda after due observance of all formalities and after obtaining the approval of the elders of the tribes would belong to the tribal community to which her husband belongs on the analogy of the wife taking the husbands domicile. 10. 10. According to the learned counsel, the whole policy of the State of Bihar was wrong, as once a scheduled caste/tribe lady married to an upper caste man, she merges her identity with that of her husband and she becomes a part and parcel of his family including the caste and, as such, according to the learned counsel treating the offspring of a married scheduled caste lady with an upper caste Hindu being treated as scheduled caste is bad, rather the said reservation should have been granted only to the category to which the petitioner belongs. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for thepetitioner for the same purpose is in the case of V. V. Giri V/s. D. Suri Dora and others reported in A.I.R. 1959 Supreme Court 1318. Chapter 2 of Maynes Hindu Law and Usage has been placed to show that next to Manu in date and authority was Yajnavalkya. Several other judgments of the Supreme Court have also been relied upon for the same purpose. 11. As far as C.W.J.C. Nos. 6739 and 5868 of 2002 are concerned, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners counsel that both the writ petitioners, namely, Kumari Renu and Swati Shree were twin born on 15.1.1094, out of illegitimate relationship without marriage between a Kurmi father Yogendra Prasad and a Dusadh mother Sunita Devi. The contention on behalf of these petitioners is that Sunita Devi was already married with one Banwari Paswan, which would be apparent from Annexure 18 of the writ petition. 12. It has further been contended that as Yogendra Prasad and Sunita Devi were already married and were having wife and husband of their own but due to their illegal relationship twin daughters were born, as such, they have to be treated as Dusadh, a scheduled caste as their mother belongs to the aforesaid caste. A further fact, which has been contended, is that even in the civil court, the petitioners had moved for maintenance and accepting them as illegal child maintenance has been granted to them by their father. 13. It has further been contended that in view of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 110 of 1992 declaring the petitioners as Dusadh, now their caste certificate cannot be cancelled. The judgments as quoted above are the citations in these two cases also. 14. 13. It has further been contended that in view of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 110 of 1992 declaring the petitioners as Dusadh, now their caste certificate cannot be cancelled. The judgments as quoted above are the citations in these two cases also. 14. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has contended that the validity of the letter issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 11.12.1985 cannot be challenged as the same has been issued only in view of the practical difficulties being faced by the authorities in implementing the decision dated 3rd March, 1978 for granting scheduled caste status to offspring of an upper caste father and a scheduled caste mother. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the State that it has been found that the aforesaid provision was being misused/misutilised as a plain reading of the aforesaid letter would go to show that a scheduled caste lady was being exploited. 15. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the whole purpose was to encourage such marriage, i.e., marriage between an upper caste and a scheduled caste and not for exploitation of the scheduled caste girls, as it was found that the same was resulting in exploitation, a clarification was required to be issued. 16. Another argument, which has been made by the learned counsel for the State is that this letter was also being misutilised by upper caste person by way of interpolation to illegally get his own offspring declared as a scheduled caste by asking some scheduled caste lady to accept the factum that before her marriage the child of the upper caste father was born through her and to give its legitimacy filed a suit for maintenance and compromised the same and after giving maintenance in court to his own offspring get him/her declared as scheduled caste and got reservation in the aforesaid category. Though the same was meant for genuine candidates, who belong to the category of scheduled caste. As these were the difficulties, which were being faced by the State Government, theclarification, which has been made by the letter dated 11th December, 1985 is nothing more than that and as such, it has been contended that the same should not be interfered with. 17. As these were the difficulties, which were being faced by the State Government, theclarification, which has been made by the letter dated 11th December, 1985 is nothing more than that and as such, it has been contended that the same should not be interfered with. 17. Even in the present case with regard to the same factual aspect, it has been contended that the so-called mother of Kumari Renu and Swati Shree has accepted before the Panchayat and otherwise that Kumari Renu and Swati Shree were not her daughters, rather it has been contended that she was already having her three children when she is said to be living with the father of Kumari Renu and Kumari Swati Shree. A fact, which has further been contended is that during the aforesaid period the father of these petitioners were said to be living with his wife and at that time a lady with three children, who is alleged to be working for them, is said to have given birth to these two daughters. These facts have been placed on the record to show that how a benefit, which was meant for an oppressed class to uplift them and encourage inter caste marriage, has been manipulated and taken benefit thereof. 18. This court in its considered opinion is in agreement with the stand of the State that as the reservation, which is there under the schedule, is already there and any further benefit, which is being given as a beneficiary relief, should not be allowed to be misutilised. 19. I do not find anything in the letter dated 11th December, 1985 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department requiring interference, specially as the original letter being letter no.99 dated 3rd March, 1978 has not been challenged. As the validity of the letter has been upheld, as such, consequential action of the respondents in cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioners is also not required to be interfered with. 20. However, before parting with the order, this court wants to make it clear that today when the aforesaid certificate cannot be cancelled. He is a qualified Doctor and has to be treated as such. Any notice issued for the aforesaid purpose stands quashed. 20. However, before parting with the order, this court wants to make it clear that today when the aforesaid certificate cannot be cancelled. He is a qualified Doctor and has to be treated as such. Any notice issued for the aforesaid purpose stands quashed. However, as the petitioners admission to M.S.(Ortho) course was a conditional one and he has hardly put in a few months thereof, the cancellation of the same is not required to be interfered with, as the caste certificate given to him has been cancelled. 21. As far as the case of writ petitioners, Kumari Renu and Swati Shree in C.W.J.C. Nos. 6739 and 5868 of 2002 are concerned, the degree and certificate, which have already been granted to them, pursuant to completing their course in an institution are not required to be interefered with. However, as their caste certificate has been cancelled they have to be treated belonging to the caste of their father. As far as lodging of the first information report is concerned, this is only getting a matter registered for investigation and enquiry, as such, the same is also not required to be interfered with. However, the same would not mean any direction by this court to institute an F.I.R. 22. In the result, all the five writ applications are dismissed with certain modifications as directed above, but there will be no order as to costs.