Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 698 (JHR)

Anirudha Golder v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-06-18

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to command the Respondents, particularly, Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Respondent No. 4, the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi to issue "Duplicate Caste Certificate" in the name of petitioner in the manner as expressed in the prescribed format for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of Staff Selection Commission, as the petitioners original certificate has been lost for which an FIR is stated to have been lodged. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father Sri Amiya Kumar Golder is an immigrant from East Pakistan (now Bangla Desh) who arrived at Mana Camp, Raipur (the then Madhya Pradesh, now Chhatis-garh) on 3rd of August, 1970. His father was issued a Caste Certificate by the Chief Commandant, Mana Camp on 11th July, 1973 indicating his caste as Namasudra, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes List (Modification) Order 1957 read with Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1956 and the Constitution (Jammu and Kashmir) Scheduled Caste Order, 1956 and the Constitution (Andaman and Nicobar Island) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1956. 3. Further case of the petitioner is that his father was rehabilitated by the Government of India and was appointed as Primary Teacher. Subsequently, he was taken in the Postal Department at Ranchi since November, 1976. The petitioner was issued a Caste Certificate by the Respondents authorities on 22nd May, 1990 indicating his caste as "Namasudra" recognized as Scheduled Caste on the basis of Caste Certificate issued to his father on 11th July, 1973. Similar Caste Certificates were also issued to his younger brother Anindyudyuti Golder and sister Prithumita Golder on 14th May, 1990 and 22nd May, 1990 respectively by the respondents authorities. The petitioner has stated that he lost his original copy of the Caste Certificate along with other academic Certificates on 24th March, 2001 while traveling by Auto Rickshaw for which he has already lodged an FIR with Sadar PS on 28th March, 2001. It was also published in the local newspaper on 29th March, 2001, but till date those certificates could not be located. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of advertisement published in Employment News on 5th-11th August, 2000, he applied for appointment in the Central Government and requires a Caste Certificate in format. It was also published in the local newspaper on 29th March, 2001, but till date those certificates could not be located. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of advertisement published in Employment News on 5th-11th August, 2000, he applied for appointment in the Central Government and requires a Caste Certificate in format. It is stated that the petitioner has already been selected by the Staff Selection Commission and for that he has requested the Respondent No. 3 oh 28th February, 2003 to provide him the Caste Certificate in the format, but he has not yet been provided with the same. For the said purpose, the petitioner has requested the Staff Selection Commission to extend the time for submission of the Caste Certificate. 5. The counsel for the petitioner relied on Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes List (Modification) Order, 1957 to suggest that "Namasudra" has been shown as Scheduled Caste for the States of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Orissa, Tripura and West Bengal. It was submitted that the father of the petitioner having migrated from the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), he was provided with the Caste Certificate, such certificates have also been provided to the petitioner, his brother and sister. The Caste Certificate of petitioner having lost, he has only asked for Issuance of a Duplicate Caste Certificate. 6. The fact is that the petitioner applied for a Duplicate Caste Certificate has not been disputed by the Respondents. It is stated that the Caste "Namasudra" is mentioned at SI. No. 45 in the list of Other Backward Communities of the State of Jharkhand in the Jharkhand Vacancies in Posts and Services Reservation (ST, SC and Other Backward Class) Act, 2001, therefore, the Respondent No. 5, vide his letter No. 259 dated 4th March, 2003 sought guidelines from the Respondent No. 4. It is also pointed out that the Caste "Namasudra" does not figure in the list of Scheduled Caste in the 5th Schedule of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, whereby the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 stood amended. The provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India fell for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time. It is also pointed out that the Caste "Namasudra" does not figure in the list of Scheduled Caste in the 5th Schedule of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, whereby the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 stood amended. The provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India fell for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time. In the case of Action Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244 , the Supreme Court held that on a plain reading of Clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342, it is manifest that the power of the President is limited to specify caste or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or a Union Territory, as the case may be. A given Caste or Tribe can be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State or Union Territory for which it is specified. Therefore, merely because a given Caste is specified in a State as a Scheduled Caste, does not necessarily mean that if there be another Caste having the same nomenclature in another State, the person belonging to the former could be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the later State for the purposes of the Constitution. A person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in relation to his original State of which he is a permanent or ordinary resident, he may not be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to that State for the purpose of employment, education etc. 7. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that his father was permanent or temporary resident of West Bengal, Admittedly, his father Amiya Kumar Golder migrated from East Bengal i.e. East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Thereby, the petitioner cannot derive any advantage if the "Namasudra" of West Bengal is declared a Scheduled Caste. After migration, the father of petitioner was in Mana Camp, in the then Madhya Pradesh (now in Chhatisgarh). Subsequently, father of the petitioner came to join his service at Ranchi i.e. the then Bihar (now in Jharkhand). The petitioner along with his father also resided in Ranchi for study etc., as pleaded in the writ petition. After migration, the father of petitioner was in Mana Camp, in the then Madhya Pradesh (now in Chhatisgarh). Subsequently, father of the petitioner came to join his service at Ranchi i.e. the then Bihar (now in Jharkhand). The petitioner along with his father also resided in Ranchi for study etc., as pleaded in the writ petition. "Namasudra" having not declared as a Scheduled Caste in M.P. (now Chhatisgarh) or in Bihar (now Jharkhand), the petitioner cannot derive any advantage of his being a "Namasudra" to get hold a Scheduled Caste Certificate in his favour. 8. In the aforesaid background, if the respondents have refused to grant a Scheduled Caste Certificate or a Duplicate Certificate, I find no reason to interfere with the same. 9. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.