Judgment :- N.K. Patil, J. The petitioner assailing the correctness of the order dated 10-10-2005 passed in Application No.1018 of 2002 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore produced at Annexure-A wherein he has sought for a direction to the respondent to treat the applicant-petitioner as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category from the date of appointment i.e., 14-05-1979. Consequently he has prayed to quash the order dated 13.12.2001 at Annexure-A10 produced along with the application before the Tribunal. The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal and the appellant is before this Court in this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are: The petitioner claiming that he is working as a Second Division Assistant in the department of Health and Family Welfare, Haveri District has filed an application seeking for a direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe from the date of his appointment i.e., 14-05-1979 and consequently to quash the endorsement dated 14-12-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent and further sought for a direction to the respondents to assign correct ranking in the gradation list of Second Division Assistants taking into consideration that the petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe candidate with all consequential benefits from 01-08-1984 onwards etc. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other material on the file after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner following the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal rendered in Rangaswamy Nayak and Others Vs. State and Others 1997 KSLJ 1993 (Tri.) (FB) and with reference to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 22662 of 1991 disposed of on 18-11-1991 has dismissed the application holding that the petitioner is not entitled to be declared that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category from the date of his appointment in view of the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal and notification issued by the Government, the declaration is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset that, the Central Government has declared “Nayaka” as a Scheduled Tribe in the year 1975, the State Government contrary to the said Circular issued the notification in the year 1991 dated 28-06-1991. The said Circular issued by the Government cannot be made applicable and deny the benefits to the petitioner. Therefore he submitted that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 4. As against this, the learned Additional Government Advocate, inter alia, substantiated the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and interference by this Court is uncalled for. He has taken us through the circular issued by the social welfare and Labour Department dated 28-06-1991 and the same was published in Karnataka Gazette dated 18-07-1991 vehemently submitted that the benefit is extended with effect from 19-04-1991 throughout the State of Karnataka and “Naik”, “Nayak”, “Beda”, “Bedar” and “Valmiki” communities were included under the Schedule Tribes with effect from 19-04-1991. The petitioner has sought for treating him as a Scheduled Tribe retrospectively from the date of his appointment. Therefore he submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any good ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Tribunal. Hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed as misconstrued. 5. After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the order impugned passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore produced at Annexure-A is in consonance with the relevant provisions or the decision taken by the State Government is in accordance with law. 6. After careful perusal of the relevant material on the file, what emerges is that in fact the Social Welfare and Labour Secretariat issued the Circular dated 28-06-1991 bearing No. SWL 104 SAD 91. The same was published in the Gazette on 18-07-1991 clarifying that ordinance has been issued including “Naik”, “Nayak”, “Beda”, “Bedar” and “Valmiki” communities under the Schedule Tribes with effect from 19-04-1991 throughout the State of Karnataka. The same was published in the Gazette on 18-07-1991 clarifying that ordinance has been issued including “Naik”, “Nayak”, “Beda”, “Bedar” and “Valmiki” communities under the Schedule Tribes with effect from 19-04-1991 throughout the State of Karnataka. It is significant to note that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the notification issued by the State Government seeking declaration to extend the benefit retrospectively from the date of his appointment i.e., 14-05-1979 as a Scheduled Tribe and extend all the consequential benefits. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate the same cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the appellant that he has questioned the Circular dated 28-06-1991. The Tribunal taking all these relevant factors into consideration and also the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18-11-1991 in Writ Petition No. 22662 of 1991, the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rangaswamy Nayak, has taken a view that the notification regarding the declaration is prospective in nature and not retrospective and further it is relevant to note that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also fairly submitted that similar was the view declared by the Apex Court while confirming the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal. In view of the admission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the question of interfering and entertaining the relief sought for in the writ petition would not arise. The relief is misconceived in nature in view of the well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in a host of judgments. Taking all these factors into consideration we decline to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.