Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 89 (PAT)

Shashi Bhushan Sah v. State Of Bihar

2005-01-31

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 30th January, 2004 issued vide Memo No. 263 issued under the signature of the District Collector, Begusarai whereby and whereunder claim of the petitioner for his appointment in First Regional Competitive Examination held by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) against the reserved quota has been rejected. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belonged to Gond caste which is a Schedule Tribe and pursuant to Advertisement issued by the Commission for the First Regional Competitive Examination, applied for his appointment and annexed the caste certificate granted by the Block Development Officer showing himself as a member of Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner competed in the competitive examination and accordingly the Commission recommended his name vide letter No. 1037 dated 15.1.2003 along with other persons for appointment against the Scheduled Caste vacancy. The petitioner thereafter approached the Collector, Begusarai for his appointment but the same was refused by the Collector by virtue of the order as contained in Annexure 1 saying that he belonged to Godhi Mallah community which is not a Scheduled Tribe. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and his ancestors were Gond by caste which is a recognized tribal community and in past his family members were given caste certificate by the Collector of the district showing them as Gond, members of Scheduled Tribe and thereafter they obtained government job but in the case of the petitioner, he is being discriminated on untenable grounds. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner is culturally backward and by profession also he is Gond by caste who is necessarily a member of Scheduled Tribe and since his ancestors were declared to be the members of Scheduled Tribe being Gond by caste, he was entitled in law to be declared as a member of Scheduled Tribe. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Collector wholly erred in declaring the petitioner as a member of Godhi Caste, Learned counsel further contended that since his ancestors were declared Scheduled Tribe, necessarily the petitioner is entitled to be declared as a member of Scheduled Tribe. 4. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Collector wholly erred in declaring the petitioner as a member of Godhi Caste, Learned counsel further contended that since his ancestors were declared Scheduled Tribe, necessarily the petitioner is entitled to be declared as a member of Scheduled Tribe. 4. Learned S.C. 3, with reference to counter affidavit, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was Godhi Mallah and according to the records of right, he and his ancestors have been described as Godhi which would be manifest from Annexure C to the counter affidavit. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State that Godhis are not the members of Scheduled Tribe rather they belong to Most Backward Community and, therefore, he was not entitled to be appointed against the vacancies of reserved quota of Scheduled Tribes. The record of right was also produced before me for my perusal. From perusal of it, it appears that the ancestors of the petitioner have been described as Godhi. 5. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the Commission, however, submitted that the Commission on the basis of the declaration given by the petitioner in his application about his caste accompanied by a certificate granted by the Block Development Officer, recommended his name for appointment against Scheduled Tribe vacancy as he was one of the successful candidates. 6. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner applied for the appointment in First Regional Competitive Examination annexing therewith a caste certificate granted by the Block Development Officer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not annexed a caste certificate duly granted by the competent authority i.e. either by the Collector or by the Sub-divisional Officer in token of his caste. The Collector by the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 after due enquiry, held that the petitioner belongs to Godhi Mallah community which in no case comes in the category of Gond nor it is a member of Scheduled Tribe. So far as the ancestors are concerned who are alleged to have been granted certificate by the Collector showing that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community, in my opinion, that will not operate as estoppel for the authorities and the illegalities which are alleged to have been committed, now should not be allowed to perpetuate. 7. So far as the ancestors are concerned who are alleged to have been granted certificate by the Collector showing that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community, in my opinion, that will not operate as estoppel for the authorities and the illegalities which are alleged to have been committed, now should not be allowed to perpetuate. 7. In view of the facts stated above, I do not find sufficient reason to interfere in the matter. 8. This writ application accordingly is dismissed.