T. Nandakumar Singh, J.— Heard Mr.P.R.Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Advocate General, Tripura as well as Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner, Sri Partha Das @ Partha Kumar Das, son of a migrant to Tripura, late Sri Paresh Chandra Das, from Hidrabad Village, Sub-Division Brahmanbaria, District Kumilia of the then East Bengal (now Bangladesh) claims himself as a member of the Scheduled Caste community called "Jailia Kaibarta" which is recognized as one of the scheduled caste communities in the State of Tripura. 3. Succinct fact, leading to the filing of the present writ petition which will be sufficient for deciding the core question of the present writ petition, is noted. The father and forefathers of the writ petitioner are members of Jailia Kaibarta community of the then East Bengal (at present Bangladesh) and amongst Jailia Kaibarta community, the term 'Choudda Mouja" i.e. 14 (fourteen) villages was very much in the vocabulary. Those fourteen villages were mostly populated by Jailia Kaibarta community. Villages, such as Samrail, Nunpur, Bankali, Shabajpur, Hidrabad and Majlishpur were among those fourteen villages. The forefathers of the petitioner were permanent residents of Hidrabad village, Brahmanbaria Sub-Division, District-Kumilia of the then East Bengal. The petitioner's grandfather late Sitanath Das was a fisherman by profession; and was born and brought up at village Hidrabad of the then East Bengal (at present Bangladesh). It is not clear from the pleadings of the writ petitioner in the writ petition if late Sitanath Das (grandfather of the petitioner) was migrated from village Hidrabad, Brahmanbaria District, East Bengal to Calcutta and then to Tripura. It is also not clear as to name of the village in Bangladesh where the petitioner's father late Paresh Chandra Das was born. But three facts are clear from the pleadings that (i) originally petitioner's father late Paresh Chandra Das was the permanent resident of Hidrabad Village, Sub Division, Brahmanbaria, District Kumila of Bangladesh, (ii) the petitioner's father late Paresh Chandra Das was not born in the State of Tripura; and (iii) the petitioner's father, Paresh Chandra Das is a migrant to Tripura From Bangladesh. 4. According to service record of the petitioner's father, late Paresh Chandra Das, he was born on 1 Oth December, 1928. 4. According to service record of the petitioner's father, late Paresh Chandra Das, he was born on 1 Oth December, 1928. Late Paresh Chandra Das was born in Bangladesh as it appears from the pleading of the writ petitioner in the present writ petition, and migrated to Calcutta after partition. Late Paresh Chandra Das (petitioner's father) immediately after partition of the country went to Calcutta and engaged himself as worker in the Royal Press. Very lately only in the last part of 1960 the petitioner's father late Paresh Chandra Das shifted to Agartala and procured a job in the then Kohinoor Press, Motorstand, Agartala. It is also stated (HQ636 GAUHATI LAW TIM ES VOL. I, 2013 that the petitioner's father late Paresh Chandra Das entered into postal service in the year 1959 and retired from service in the year 1988. Admittedly in the Service Book of the petitioner's father, duly signed by him and verified by the superior officers, cast of his father is recorded as 'Hindu' (Kayastha). From the pleadings of the petitioner in the present writ petition, it is clear that during the long service career of the petitioner's father, he never claimed his cast status as Scheduled .Caste "Jailia Kaibarta" community of Tripura nor he produced any scheduled caste certificate before the authority while he was in service. 5. It is stated that the then SDO Sadar, West Tripura, after due and proper enquiry issued SC Status Certificate that the petitioner's father is a member of the Jailia Kaibarta community vide No. 17213/XII.2/SDO/SDR/TW/81 dated 16.07.1981 and copy of the said Certificate is also annexed as Annexpre-P/2. The SDO/SDM Sadar, is not the concerned SDM of the native village of the petitioner's father from where he migrated to the State of Tripura. The concerned authority for issuing the SC Certificate isthe Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the concerned authority of the native village of the petitioner's father, under the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992, which this court will discuss later on. 6. Even before the petitioner's father obtained SC Certificate dated 16.07.1981, the SDM Sadar after due and proper enquiry issued SC Certificate that the petitioner is a member of the SC, i.e. 'Jailia Kaibarta' community vide Certificate No.790.F/XH-2/SDO/SDR/TW/84-85 dated 21.06.1980 as per the pleading of the petitioner. A copy of the said Certificate dated 21.06.1980 is also annexed as Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition. A copy of the said Certificate dated 21.06.1980 is also annexed as Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition. But Annexure P.4 which is said to be a copy of the SC Certificate dated 21.06.1980 issued in favour of the petitioner bears the date 21.06.1984. Typed copy of Annexure-P/4 bears the date 21.06.1980 at the top and also again it is dated 21.06.1989 at the bottom. The contradictions in the dates of the SC Certificate said to have been issued in favour of the petitioner, in the pleadings of the writ petitioner in the writ petition and anneuxres to the writ petition had been pointed out by respondent No.2, 3, 4 and 5 in their joint affidavit in opposition; and also that no SC Certificate in favour of the petitioner was issued on 21.06.1980 and also SC Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is false and concocted one. But the writ petitioner did not file any affidavit in reply to the said facts mentioned in the affidavit in opposition filed by respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 5. 7. Petitioner also stated that he was a regular student of B.Com 2 (two) years Pass Course of Birbikram Memorial College, Agartala and petitioner was admitted as SC candidate and received stipend and scholarship as Scheduled Caste candidate. It is not stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was admitted as member of the SC 'Jailia Kaibarta' community in B.Com 2 yrs course of Birbikram Memorial College, Agartala. It is also stated that the Principal Birbikram Memorial College, issued SC Certificate that after consulting admission record and other relevant records, the petitioner is a member of the SC but did not mention the name of the SC community. The form for issuing SC Certificate as well as the authority competent to issue SC Certificate are clearly mentioned in the Tripura Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Reservation Rules, 1992 (for short Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992) and Tripura SC & ST (Reservation) Act, 1991. The Certificate said to have been issued by the Principal Birbikram Memorial College is, neither in the prescribed form for issuing SC Certificate nor the Principal, Birbikram Memorial College, is competent authority for issuing SC Certificate. 8. The Executive Officer of South Zonal Office of Agartala Municipal Council had made an enquiry in relation to the caste status of the petitioner in the original registrar of Agartala Municipal Council. 8. The Executive Officer of South Zonal Office of Agartala Municipal Council had made an enquiry in relation to the caste status of the petitioner in the original registrar of Agartala Municipal Council. It is also stated that when the petitioner applied for job under SC category, petitioner was required to produce caste certificate in respect ofhis claim from the competent authority, i.e. the SDM, Sadar. It is also further alleged that on the prayer of the petitioner for issue of SC Certificate to enable him to consider for employment against reserved vacancy for SC category candidates, the SDO Sadar on 16.03.1994, after making enquiry, issued caste certificate in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner is a member of the Jailia Kaibarta community. Copy of the said caste certificate dated 16.03.1994 was also annexed as annexure P/8 to the writ petition. The said Annexure-P/8 bears the date 16.03.1999. Contradiction in the dates of the SC Certificate said to have been issued in favour of the petitioner on 16.03.1994 in the pleading of the writ petitioner in the writ petition and annexures to the writ petition had been pointed out by the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 in their joint affidavit and further the respondents in their joint affidavit, categorically stated that no SC Certificate had been issued in favour of the writ petitioner either in the year 1994 or 1999. This court had perused the records for issuing SC Certificates maintained by the SDO/SDM Sadar, Agartala and on such perusal it is clear that no SC Certificate, alleged to have been obtained by the petitioner, either on 16.03.1994 or 16.03.1999, was issued by the SDO, Sadar, Tripura. 9. The petitioner became a member of the Tripura Legislative Assembly in February 2008 being elected from the 33 Salgara Assembly Constituency, which is a Scheduled Caste Reserved Constituency. While the opponents of the petitioner failed to defeat him politically in the battle of ballots, they resorted to mischievous design to harass and hackle the petitioner. As a part of such design, one Anil Chandra Das, lodged a complaint to the Deputy Director, National Commission for Scheduled Caste, Government of India alleging that the SC Certificates of the petitioner, his brother, Sri Pranab Das and his father, late Paresh Chandra Das had been obtained by hiding their actual caste status to the competent authority. As a part of such design, one Anil Chandra Das, lodged a complaint to the Deputy Director, National Commission for Scheduled Caste, Government of India alleging that the SC Certificates of the petitioner, his brother, Sri Pranab Das and his father, late Paresh Chandra Das had been obtained by hiding their actual caste status to the competent authority. The said complaint was forwarded by the Deputy Director, National Commission for SC, State Office at Agartala vide letter dated 03.04.2008 to the Member Secretary, (Director of SC Welfare) State Level Scrutiny Committee, Agartala for taking necessary action. Thereafter the State Level Scrutiny Committee referred the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, West Tripura on 22.05.2008 for verification of the caste status of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, as provided under the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992, caused local inquiry through his administrative agency to ascertain if the petitioner belongs to the SC community. The SDO/SDM Sadar also issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide MemoNo.F.9 (260)/SDM/SDR/TW/08/252-54 dated 17.02.2011; and the Special Vigilance Officer of the SDM Sadar, submitted report that the petitioner did not belong to the SC Community. 10. It is also stated that the said show cause notice was also with reference to the inquiry conducted by the Scheduled Caste Welfare Sub Committee of the Agartala Municipal Council, who reported that the petitioner does not belong to the SC community. It is also stated that the show cause notice was a mere ritual for canceling tne SC Certificate of the petitioner. The writ petitioner, in stead of submitting show cause statement in reply to the said show cause notice, had filed WP (C) No.93 of 2011 challenging the said show cause notice issued by the SDM, Sadar. This court vide judgment and order dated 26.04.2011 disposed of the said WP(C) No.93 of 2011 directing the SDM, Sadar, who had done the enquiry against the petitioner to transmit the records to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter the State Level Scrutiny Committee referred the case to the Vigilance Cell for verification of the caste status of the petitioner on 21.05.2011. The Vigilance Cell submitted report on 20.08.2011 that the petitioner belongs to SC community i.e.' Jailia Kaibarta' community. 11. Thereafter the State Level Scrutiny Committee referred the case to the Vigilance Cell for verification of the caste status of the petitioner on 21.05.2011. The Vigilance Cell submitted report on 20.08.2011 that the petitioner belongs to SC community i.e.' Jailia Kaibarta' community. 11. The State Level Scrutiny Committee in stead of closing the enquiry on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell had issued show cause notice to the petitioner asking for neply in writing to prove his caste status. The State Level Committee, after allowing the petitioner to prove his caste status by not only producing oral evidence but also documentary evidence, had passed the impugned order dated 31.07.2012 that the petitioner does not belong to 'Jailia Kaibarta' community; rather the evidence and documents clearly indicate that the petitioner belong to general caste and, therefore, the State Level Scrutiny Committee decided to cancel the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner, and accordingly, SC Certificate bearing No.790/F.XII.2/SDO/SDR/TW/84-85 dated 21.06.1984 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer is cancelled. This court shall also consider the proceeding of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and reasons for passing the impugned order dated 31.07.2012 at the latter stage of this judgment. 12. It would be beneficial for deciding the core question in the present writ petition to reproduce the relevant portions of the impugned order dated 31.07.2012 hereunder: "31.072012 A complaint was received that Sri Partha Das, S/o Sri Paresh Ch.Das ofNorth Badharghat, Agartala, West Tripura has obtained Sch.Caste Certificate though he does not belong to Sch.Caste Community. 2. The matter was referred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, West Tripura on 22.5.2008 for verification of Caste status of Sri Partha Das and also for taking appropriate action as per provision contained in the SC & ST reservation Act/Rules. The S.D.M Sadar enquired the matter through his administrative agency and also obtained views of the Scheduled Caste Welfare Sub-Committee, Agartala Municipal Council wherein it reveals that Sri Partha Das does not belong to Sch.Caste. 3. The S.D.M., Sadar before taking decision on the caste status of Sri Das has given him an opportunity by issuing a memo No.F.9(260)/SDM/SDR/TW/08/252-54 dated 16.2.2011 to Sri Das and asked him to clarify as to why the Sch Caste certificate issued in his favour vide No.790/F.XII.2/SDO/SDR/TW/84-85 dated 21.6.84 should not be cancelled and also asked him to appear personally before the SDM for submission/reply. But Sri Das did not reply rather he challenged the memo and jurisdiction of the SDM and filed a writ petition vide WP(C) No.93 of 2011 before Hon'ble Gauhati H igh Court, Agartala Bench. 4. The Hon'ble Gauahti High Court, Agartala Bench in WP(C) No.93 of 2011 in respect of Sri Partha Das @ Partha Kr.Das S/O Sri Paresh Ch.Das of North Badharghat, Agartala, West Tripura passed a judgment and directed the SDM Sadar on 26.04.2011 to furnish the case records to the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) who in turn shall carry out and pass appropriate order. 5. Accordingly the SDM Sadar forwarded the case records to the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 07.05.2011. 6. The State Level Scrutiny Committee as per policy decided to refer the issue to the vigilance for verification of caste status of Sri-Partha Das on 21.5.2011. The Vigilance submitted its report on 20.8.2011 wherein the vigilance stated that Sri Partha Das belongs to Jalia Kaibarta Community which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in Tripura. Earlier, a report was also sought from the Scheduled Caste Welfare Sub Committee, Agartala Municipal Council, a body constituted under the provision of the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 for its opinion about the caste status of Sri Partha Das in reply to which the Sub Committee opined that Sri Partha Das does not belong to Scheduled Caste. ** ** ** ** ** ** 9. Accordingly a notice was issued to Sri Das on 03.02.2012 to appear before the committee. But Sri Das did not appear before the committee on date but he submitted another representation on 18.2.2012 seeking further time till budget session of Assembly is over. The SLSC in its meeting held on 22.02.2012 considered his prayer and decided to hear Sri Partha Das on 4.4.2012 accordingly a notice was issued on 3.3.2012 and Sri Partha Das appeared before the committee on 4.4.2012 along with his lawyer Sri Dipak Deb, Ld Advocate. The SLSC recorded deposition of Sri Das and submitted some documents in support of his caste status and Affidavit of witnesses. Namely Sri Malin Kanta Paul, Sri Adhir Ch.Das and Sri Narayan Deb. The SLSC decided to examine the three witnesses as mentioned in his deposition. Accordingly a notice was issued to Sri Partha Das on 19.04.2012 to appear before the committee alognwith above mentioned 3 (three) witnesses on 26.04.2012. Namely Sri Malin Kanta Paul, Sri Adhir Ch.Das and Sri Narayan Deb. The SLSC decided to examine the three witnesses as mentioned in his deposition. Accordingly a notice was issued to Sri Partha Das on 19.04.2012 to appear before the committee alognwith above mentioned 3 (three) witnesses on 26.04.2012. But the meeting was postponed due to unavoidable circumstances. The SLSC fixed the next date on 12.06.2012. Accordingly a notice was issued to Sri Partha Das on 21.05.2012 to appear before the committee alongwith witnesses. Sri Partha Das appeared before the committee on 12.06.2012 along with three witnesses. The SLSC recorded the deposition of three witnesses namely Sri Malin Kanta Paul, Sri Adhir Ch.Das and Sri Narayan Deb. All witnesses stated that Sri Partha Das is well known to them and he belongs to Sch.Caste jalia Kaibarta Community, but they did not produce any documents/evidences in support of their deposition. 10. In the meantime the SLSC received 17 (seventeen) applications from opposite party of Sri Partha Das. After careful examination of the application in its meeting on 12.6.2012, the SLSC considered 5 (five) witnesses namely (1) Sri Hari Prasad Datta, s/o Lt.NagendraCh.Datta, (2) Sri Subash Ch.Biswas, Secretary, Abhilasha Welfare Society, College Tilla, West Tripura, (3) Sri Anil Ch. Das, General Secretary, Tripura State Namasudra Social Welfare Association, Agartala, West Tripura, (4) Sri Biplab Ch.Sarkar, s/o Sri Bimal Ch.Sarkar, PO Dhaleswar, Agartala, West Tripura and (5) Sri Nakul Das, s/o Lt. Ananda mohan Das Vill-& PO Jogend-ranagar, Agartala, West Tripura. 11. The SLSC decided to hear the aforesaid 5 (five) witnesses on 30.06.2012. Accordingly a notice was issued in the name of above mentioned 5 (five) witnesses for appearing before the SLSC as witnesses of opposite party along with documents if any. The SLSC has also given opportunity to Sri Partha Das for appearing before the committee for cross examination of the witnesses, if any. 12. The above mentioned witnesses appeared before the committee and Sri Partha Das also appeared along with his lawyer on 30.6.2012. The SLSC recorded deposition of witnesses namely (1) Sri Anil Ch.Das. Sri Das stated that Sri Partha Das does not belong to Sch.Caste. In support of his claim Sri Das submitted following documents pertaining to Sri Partha Das (i) Xerox Copy of Admission Form related to the admission of Sri Partha Das in class-VI signed by his elder brother Sri Chandan Kr.Das. Sri Das stated that Sri Partha Das does not belong to Sch.Caste. In support of his claim Sri Das submitted following documents pertaining to Sri Partha Das (i) Xerox Copy of Admission Form related to the admission of Sri Partha Das in class-VI signed by his elder brother Sri Chandan Kr.Das. Wherein caste status of Sri Partha Das is General was clearly indicated, (ii) Letter of Head Master. Pallimangal H.S.School stating that Sri Das did not enjoy any SC stipend. (2) Sri Subhash Ch.Biswas. Secretary Abhilasha Welfare Society, College Tilla Triura, Shri Biswas in its deposition stated that Sri Partha Das does not belong to Sch.Caste. In support of his claim, Sri Biswas submitted the following documents: (0 copy of Service Roll of Sri Paresh Ch.Das. father of Sri Partha Das, who was an employee of Indian Postal Department supplied by the Director. Postal Service, Tripura. Agartala indicates that Sri Das belongs to Hindu Kayastha Community. (3) Sri Biplab Ch.Sarkar. Secretary, West Tripura Tapsali Jati Suraksha Samiti. in his deposition stated that Sri Partha Das does not belong to Sch.Caste. In support of his claim Sri Sarkar submitted the Service record of Ex.Sub Postmaster. Lt. Paresh Ch.Das. s/o Lt.Sitanath Das father of Sri Partha Das from which it appears that Lt.Paresh Ch.Das belongs to Hindu kayastha Community. The said service record has been supplied by the Director Postal Services under RTI query and (4) Sri Nakul Das s/o Lt.Ananda Mohan Das in his deposition also stated that Sri Partha Das does not belong to Sch.Caste (Jalia Kaibarta Community). In support of his claim Sri Das submitted the following documents: (i) Minutes of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee Agartala Municipal Council meeting held on 31.01.2011 in respect of caste status of Sri Partha Das (ii) Minutes of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee meeting held on 16.01.2006 in respect of caste status of Sri Chandan Kr.Das elder brother of Sri Partha Das (iii) Enquiry report on caste status in respect of Sri Partha Das issued vide No.F.9(260VSDM/SDR/TW/08/1247 dated February 10.2011 of the SDM. Sadar. wherein it was indicated that Sri Partha Das does not belong to Sch.Caste. Sri Nakul Das also stated in his deposition that none of the male family members of Sri Partha Das married any Scheduled Caste lady. In support of his claim Sri Nakul Das submitted Electoral Roll for identification of family members. Sadar. wherein it was indicated that Sri Partha Das does not belong to Sch.Caste. Sri Nakul Das also stated in his deposition that none of the male family members of Sri Partha Das married any Scheduled Caste lady. In support of his claim Sri Nakul Das submitted Electoral Roll for identification of family members. Sri Nakul Das was an MLA for 15 years and belongs to Jalia Kaibarta Community which Sri Partha Das claims. But Shri Nakul Das stated he comes across almost all prominent persons belonging to Jalia Kaibarta Community but he never heard Shri Partha Das belongs to his community i.e. Jalia Kaibarta Community and vehemently opposed the caste status of Sri Partha Das as Jalia kaibarta which is recognized as Sch.Caste. 13. After that the SLSC decided to close the hearing. However. Shri Partha Das certificate holder was given further opportunity for submission of written argument if any by 30.07.2012. But Shri Das again sought for 6 (six) weeks time for submission of argument. The SLSC rejected his prayer on 30.07.2012 as no valid ground exists for further extension of time details of which has been recorded in its order dated 30.07.2012. 14. On careful consideration of the following documents: (1) Enquiry report of Sub divisional Magistrate. Sadar submitted on 10.02.2011 (2) Report of SC Welfare Sub Committee. Agartala Municipal Council dated 03.02.2011 (3) Copy of Service Roll of Lt.Paresh Ch.Das father of Shri Partha Das who was an employee under Indian Postal Services. Tripura Agartala (4) Copy of Service record of Ex-Sub-Postmaster of LtParesh Ch.Das father of Sri Partha Das which was issued under RTI. by the Director Postal Services. Tripura (5) Copy of Admission form related to admission of Sri Partha Das in Class VI. signed by his elder brother Sri Chandan Kr.Das (6) Other documents and recorded statement of witnesses, the SLSC come to the conclusion that Shri Partha Das does not belong to Sch.Caste but belongs to Hindu Kayastha Community which is General Caste. 15. The SLSC also observed that the vigilance report dated 20.08.2011 submitted by Sri Subrata Chakraborty Addl.Supdt of Police (Vigilance) indicates that Shri Partha Das belongs to Jalia Kaibarta community which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in Tripura. 15. The SLSC also observed that the vigilance report dated 20.08.2011 submitted by Sri Subrata Chakraborty Addl.Supdt of Police (Vigilance) indicates that Shri Partha Das belongs to Jalia Kaibarta community which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in Tripura. But the Committee did not accept the vigilance report on the ground that the enquiring officer did not furnish any supporting documents which could prove that Shri Partha Das belongs to Jalia Kaibarta community of Sch Caste. 16. In view of the appreciation of evidence and documents mentioned in para 14 above, the SLSC has reached a clear reasonable conclusion that Shri Partha Das does not belong to Jalia Kaibarta Community. Rather evidence and documents as appreciated in para 14 above indicates a prudent conclusion that Shri Partha Das belongs to General Caste by inheritance. Therefore, now the State Level Scrutiny Committee decides to cancel the Scheduled Caste Certificate issued to Shri Partha Das and accordingly Scheduled Caste Certificate bearing N0.790/F.XII.2/SDO/SDR/TW/84-85 dated 21.6.84 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar is hereby cancelled and confiscated. 17. A copy of order may be supplied to Shri Partha Das, certificate holder. Certificate issuing authority may also be informed to record the same in the Register." 13. The joint affidavit in opposition filed by respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 5 categorically • stated that the petitioner is not a member of the SC' Jailia Kaibarta' community and he obtained one SC Certificate dated 21.6.1984 from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Tripura by committing fraud and also that the petitioner is not a member of any SC community; and also that the petitioner's lather late Paresh Chandra Das also obtained caste certificate dated 16.07.1981 by committing fraud from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, who is not the concerned authority for issuing SC Certificate of the petitioner's father inasmuch as the petitioner's father is a migrant to Tripura from Bangladesh, the concerned authority in Bangladesh has to issue SC Certificate for the petitioner's father and also that as per service record of the petitioner's father, he belonged to Hindu 'Kayastha' community. The School admission register as well as application form for admission of the petitioner in the School, duly filled up under the hand writing of the petitioner's elder brother Shri Chandan Kr.Das, clearly mentioned that the caste of the petitioner is general. The School admission register as well as application form for admission of the petitioner in the School, duly filled up under the hand writing of the petitioner's elder brother Shri Chandan Kr.Das, clearly mentioned that the caste of the petitioner is general. It is worth to mention that as directed, the learned A.G, Tripura, appearing on behalf of the respondents placed the School Admission Register as well as the original application form for the petitioner before this Court; and on perusal of such records it is clear that the petitioner's elder brother Shri Chandan Kr. Das, under his own handwriting filed application for admission of the petitioner in the School and in that application it is clearly mentioned that the caste of the petitioner is general. The said original application for admission of the petitioner in the School, i.e. Pallimangal H.S.School, Tripura West bears the date of 18.02.1981. 14. From the records produced by the parties, it is clear that there is no record to show that the petitioner and his father claimed themselves to be members of SC 'Jailia Kaibarta' community before June, 1981."The main thrust in the present writ petition is that the State Level Scrutiny Committee should have closed the enquiry if the petitioner belonged to the SC 'Jailia Kaibarta' community as soon as the Vigilance Cell submitted report that the petitioner is a member of the SC Community even though the SDO Sadar, after making enquiry through its administrative agency submitted report that the petitioner is not a member of the SC 'Jailia Kaibarta' community and also that the past practice invoked was that all non Brahmin including Scheduled Castes are bracketed under the category of 'Kayastha' while describing the caste of individual belonging to non Brahmin; and as such, even though the petitioner comes into the category of 'Kayastha' he is a member of the SC 'Jailia Kaibarta' community. 15. The Presidential order for the Scheduled Caste for the State of Tripura, clearly mentioned only 'Jailia Kaibarta' and 'Kayastha' is not bracketed to 'Jailia Kaibarta' community. Under Section 11 of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Act, 1991, the onus of proof shall be on the person who claims himself to be member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. Under Section 11 of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Act, 1991, the onus of proof shall be on the person who claims himself to be member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. The Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992 is self contained and more fully prescribe the authority competent for issuing SC Certificate, procedure for issuing SC & ST Certificate, as to how the caste status of the individual is to be proved, procedure to be followed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, in making enquiry if an indnidual ; or applicant belongs to SC or ST as the case may be and also the procedure to be followed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee for cancellation of the SC & ST Certificate. Under Rule 3 of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992, the claim that one belong to SC or ST community shall be proved by a caste or tribe certificate issued by the competent authority in Form No. 1 and Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area where an applicant ordinarily resides, will be competent authority to issue the SC/ST Certificate. 16. Under Rule 5 of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992 application for issue of community certificate shall be submitted in the prescribed proforma to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area where the applicant ordinarily resides. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on receipt of the application for issue of Caste Certificate shall cause local enquiry through his administrative agency to ascertain if the applicant actually belong to SC or ST, as the case may be. On getting the enquiry report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall send application along with the enquiry report to the Block Level or Nagar Panchayat Level or Municipal Level SC Welfare Sub Committee or Sub Divisional Level Scheduled Tribe Welfare Committee, for their opinion as to whether the applicant belongs to SC or ST. If the local enquiry report submitted by his subordinate officers and the opinion of the Sub Committee concerned are similar in nature for grant of SC Certificate or ST Certificate to the applicant, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, if satisfied, may issue SC or ST Certificate to the applicant. If the local enquiry report submitted by his subordinate officers and the opinion of the Sub Committee concerned are similar in nature for grant of SC Certificate or ST Certificate to the applicant, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, if satisfied, may issue SC or ST Certificate to the applicant. But if the Sub Divisional Magistrate finds that the local enquiry and opinion of the Sub Committee are different in nature and it is difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion regarding the actual caste identity of the applicant concerned, he will refer the case along with the enquiry report and opinion of the Sub Committee through the District Magistrate or the Collector concerned to the Director of Welfare of SC and Backward Classes in the case of SC Certificate and to the Director for Welfare of ST in the case of ST Certificate for their decision. When a case is referred to the Director for Welfare of SC and other Backward Classes or the Director for Welfare of ST for a decision whether a community certificate should be issued or not, Director concerned shall cause a thorough enquiry into the matter through the Vigilance Cell. The Director for Welfare of SC and Other Backward Classes or the Director for Welfare of ST, as the case may be, will place the Vigilance enquiry report, local enquiry report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and opinion of the Sub Committee concerned before the Scrutiny Committee for a decision. The Scrutiny Committee will examine the Vigilance report and other report/records sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and take decision as to whether a Caste or Tribe Certificate shall be issued or not. Therefore, it is clear that the State Level Committee is not bound to take decision only on the basis of the Vigilance report. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, after examination of the Vigilance Report, other report/records sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate can take its own decision. The competent authority, if satisfied may issue community certificate to an applicant who has migrated to Tripura from another State on production of genuine community certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of his father's origin. The competent authority, if satisfied may issue community certificate to an applicant who has migrated to Tripura from another State on production of genuine community certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of his father's origin. In the present case, it is admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father had migrated to Tripura from East Bengal (now Bangladesh) through Calcutta, and therefore, competent authority, if satisfied, may issue community certificate to the applicant on production of the genuine community certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of his father's origin. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfill these conditions inasmuch as the petitioner, who is Scheduled Caste by birth, could not produce any certificate or SC Certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of his father's origin. 17. As the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992 is to be looked into for deciding the core question in the present case, it will be beneficial to reproduce the relevant rules of Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules as under: "3. Proof of Caste or Tribal Status. The claim that one belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be proved by a caste or Tribe certificate issued by the competent authority in Form-1. The TSub-Divisional Magistrate of the area where an applicant ordinarily resides will be the competent authority to issue a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe certificate. 4. Further verification of claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (1) An appointing authority shall verify the caste status of every Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate both at the time of initial appointment and again at the time of promotion to ensure that the Caste which a candidate belongs to has not been de-scheduled after his initial appointment or the candidate has not otherwise become disentitled to the benefits and concessions given to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (2) An appointing authority or any other authority who is supposed to accept one's claim to belong to Scheduled Caste or to Scheduled Tribes, if it so considers for any reason to verify the claim of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate, may do it through the [Director for Welfare of ] Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as the case may be. [(3) & (4)] (Deleted) S.Procedure for issuing Scheduled Caste orScheduled Tribe certificate. [(3) & (4)] (Deleted) S.Procedure for issuing Scheduled Caste orScheduled Tribe certificate. (1) A Scheduled Caste certificate or a Scheduled Tribe certificate shall be issued by the [Sub-Divisional Magistrate] of the Sub-Division where the applicant ordinarily resides according to the following procedures:- [(a) An application for issuance of a community certificate shall be submitted in the prescribed proforma before seeking admission to any educational institution or an appointment to a post or for any other purpose. On receipt of such application for a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe certificate the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall cause a local enquiry through his administrative agency to ascertain if the applicant actually belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be.] (b) On getting the enquiry report as stated under sub-rule (a) the [Sub-Divisional Magistrate] shall send the application along with the enquiry report to the [Block level or Nagar Panchayat Level or Municipal Level Scheduled Castes Welfare Sub-Committee or Sub-Divisional Level Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee] if any, constituted by the Government for their opinion as to whether the applicant actually belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.- (c) On getting the opinion of the Scheduled Castes Sub-Committee or Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee as the case may be regarding the status of the applicant the concerned [Sub-Divisional Magistrate] will verify if the local enquiry report submitted by his subordinate officer and the opinion of the Scheduled Castes Welfare Sub-Committee or the Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee concerned are of similar nature for granting a Scheduled Caste certificate or a Scheduled Tribe certificate to an applicant. (d) If the [Sub-Divisional Magistrate] is satisfied from the local enquiry report and the opinion of the Scheduled Castes Welfare or Scheduled Tribes Welfcnc Sub-Committee that the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be. he may issue a Scheduled Caste certificate or a Scheduled Tribe certificate to the applicant concerned. (d) If the [Sub-Divisional Magistrate] is satisfied from the local enquiry report and the opinion of the Scheduled Castes Welfare or Scheduled Tribes Welfcnc Sub-Committee that the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be. he may issue a Scheduled Caste certificate or a Scheduled Tribe certificate to the applicant concerned. (e) But if the [Sub-Divisional Magistrate] 1 finds that the local enquiry report and the opinion of the Scheduled Castes Welfare or Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee are different in nature and it is difficult to arrive at definite conclusion regarding the actual caste identity of the applicant concerned he will refer the case along with the local enquiry report and opinion of the Sub-Committee through the District Magistrate and Collector concerned to the [Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes] in case of Scheduled Caste certificates and to the [Director for Wei fare of Scheduled Tribes] in case of Scheduled Tribe certificates for their decision. [(f) When any case is referred to the Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes or the Director for Welfare of Scheduled Tribes for a decision whether a community certificate should be issued or not, the Director concerned shall cause a thorough enquiry into the matter through the Vigilance Cell. The Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes or the Director for Welfare of Scheduled Tribes as the case may be, will place the vigilance enquiry report, local enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and opinion of the Sub-Committee concerned before the Scrutiny Committee for a decision. The Committee will examine the Vigilance report and other reports/records sent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and take a decision whether a Caste or a Tribe certificate shall be issued or not. However, before taking a final decision, the Scrutiny Committee shall give the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee shall be final and communicated to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate] (g) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall act on the decision of the [Scrutiny Committee as communicated by the] [Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes]3 or Scheduled Tribes. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee shall be final and communicated to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate] (g) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall act on the decision of the [Scrutiny Committee as communicated by the] [Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes]3 or Scheduled Tribes. (2)(a) A competent authority, if satisfied, may issue a [Community] certificate to an applicant who has migrated to Tripura from another State on production of thegenuine community certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of theState of his father's origin. If the competent authority feels that before issuing such a community certificate a detailed enquiry is necessary through the applicant's State of origin, he may do so. (b) The certificate under clause (a) may be issued irrespective of whether the Caste/Tribe in question is included in the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes of Tripura or not. (c) When a [community certificate] under clause (a) of sub-rule (2) is issued the competent authority shall indicate in a note below the certificate in block letters that "THIS COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE HOLDER ISA MIGRANT TO TRIPURA". (d) A community certificate holder who has migrated to Tripura from his State of origin for the purpose of seeking education, employment etc, will be deemed to be Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin and will be entitled to derive benefits from the State of his origin and not from Tripura. [6. Cancellation of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe certificate An authority who issued a Scheduled Caste Certificate or Scheduled Tribe certificate to any one may, at a subsequent stage cancel it, if after an enquiry and after giving the party concerned an opportunity of being heard, it finds that the person to whom the Community Certificate was issued does not actually belong to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. Provided that in cancelling a Scheduled Caste Certificate, the issuing authority shall obtain the views of the concerned Block Level or Nagar Panchayat Level or Municipal Level Scheduled Castes Welfare Sub-Committee and in canceling a Scheduled Tribe certificate, the issuing authority shall .obtain the views of the Sub-Divisional Level Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee, if any, constituted by the Government, as to whether the certificate holder belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the views so given by the Scheduled Castes Welfare or Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee shall form a part of the order cancelling the certificate in question.Provided further that the Scrutiny Committee shall also be competent to cancel a community certificate issued by a competent authority. For arriving at a decision whether the community certificate in question shall be cancelled or not, the Scrutiny Committee shall follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 7A hereinafter along with reports/records obtained from the competent authority.] ** ** ** ** ** [7A Constitution, Powers and Functions of the Scrutiny Committee. (1) At the State Level there shall be two Scrutiny Committees as follows - (a) For verification of community status of Scheduled Caste Certificate holders, the Scrutiny Committee shall consist of:- (i) The Secretary -in- charge of Department for Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Other Backward Classes and Minorities - Chairman. (ii) The Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes - Member-Secretary (iii) Joint Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Law Department] - Member [(iv)Additional Director or Joint Director or Deputy Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes & Other Backward Classes - Member (b) For verification of community status of Scheduled Tribe certificate holders, the Scrutiny Committee shall consist of:- (i) The Secretary-in-charge of the Tribal Welfare Department - Chairman (ii) The Director for Welfare 6of Scheduled Tribes - Member-Secretary (iii) The Director, Tribal Research Institute -Member (iv) Joint Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Law Department] - Member [(2) Director of Vigilance shall constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Pol ice in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors to investigate into the community status and claims as may be required. (3) The Investigating Officer would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed. He should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the certificate holder or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the certificate holder in relation to their caste etc, or such other persons who have knowledge of the community status of the certificate holder and submit a report to the Director of Vigilance who will verify the correctness of the report and transmit it to the Member-Secretary of the Scrutiny Committee concerned together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma. in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc, by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. (4) The Member-Secretary of the Scrutiny Committee concerned, on receipt of the report from the Director of Vigilance if finds the claim for community status is not genuine or doubtful or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Member-Secretary concerned shall issue showcause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the community certificate holder by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the institution or office concerned in which the certificate holder is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case, on request, not more than 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In case, the certificate holder seeks an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Member-Secretary on receipt of such representation or reply shall convene the meeting of the committee and the Chairperson of the Committee shall give a reasonable opportunity to the certificate holder and in case the certificate holder is a minor to the parent or guardian to adduce all evidences in support of his claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may also be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may also be given to him or it. After giving such opportunity in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the certificate holder or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. Provided that in case a certificate holder engages a legal practitioner to represent his case before the Scrutiny Committee, the Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes or the Director for Welfare of Scheduled Tribes as the case may be, may engage a lawyer. Provided further that before passing a final order, the Committee shall also take into consideration the local enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and opinion of the Sub-Committee concerned. (5) In case the report is in favour of the certificate holder and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in sub-rule (4) shall be followed. (6) The inquiry should be completed as expeditiouslv as possible preferably by day-today proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, the Committee shall pass an order cancelling thel [certificate issued and confiscate the same. The Committee shall communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of proceedings the result of enquiry to the certificate holder and in case the certificate holder is a minor to his parent or guardian. The Committee shall communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of proceedings the result of enquiry to the certificate holder and in case the certificate holder is a minor to his parent or guardian. (7) In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an office or post is getting expired, the certificate holder be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the community status certificate already issued, on an affidavit duly sworn by the parent or guardian or certificate holder before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. (8) In case, the certificate obtained or community status claimed is found to be false, the parent or guardian or certificate holder as the case may be, shall be prosecuted for making the false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it shall be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, a disqualification for elective posts. (9) As soon as the findings is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false and the certificate is cancelled and confiscated, it shall be communicated to the head of the Educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The head of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, shall cancel the admission or appointment as the case may be without any further notice to the certificate holder and debar him from further study or continue in office in a post]" 18. On perusal of the Rule 5 (1) (f), It is clear that the State Level Scrutiny Committee can take its own decision as to whether a Caste Certificate or Tribe Certificate shall be issued or not after examination of the Vigilance Report and other records/reports sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. On perusal of the Rule 5 (1) (f), It is clear that the State Level Scrutiny Committee can take its own decision as to whether a Caste Certificate or Tribe Certificate shall be issued or not after examination of the Vigilance Report and other records/reports sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Further Rule 5 (2) clearly provides that the competent authority, if satisfied, may issue a community certificate to an applicant who has migrated to Tripura from another State on production of genuine community certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of his father's origin. Section 11 of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Act, 1991 clearly provides that onus of proof shall be on the person who claims himself to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. Rule 7 A (5) clearly provides that only when the report of the Vigilance Cell is in favour of the caste certificate holder and also caste certificate is found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars' given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained. Therefore, one cannot construe Rule 7A(5), which has been quoted above in such a manner that as soon as the Vigilance report is in favour of the caste certificate holder, no further action need be taken inasmuch as action shall not be taken by the State Level Scrutiny Committee only when two conditions are fulfilled:- (1) report is in favour of the caste certificate holder and (2) certificate issued to the certificate holder are genuine and true. The caste certificate issued to a caste certificate holder could be proved to be genuine only when the caste certificate was issued by the prescribed authority after fulfilling all the conditions prescribed for issuing the caste certificate. 19. It is fairly well settled that it is not open to any body to seek any modification of the order (Presidential order) by producing any evidence to show that though a particular name of the caste is mentioned in the order (Presidential Order) another case was also a part of that caste. Therefore, when the name of'Kayastha' community is not bracketed to the 'Jailia Kaibarta' community in the Presidential order for SC for the State of Tripura, it cannot be said that 'Kayastha' community is also a part of 'Jailia Kaibarta' community. Therefore, when the name of'Kayastha' community is not bracketed to the 'Jailia Kaibarta' community in the Presidential order for SC for the State of Tripura, it cannot be said that 'Kayastha' community is also a part of 'Jailia Kaibarta' community. It is clear from Article 341(1) of the Constitution that in order to determine whether or not a particular caste is a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of Article 341 of the Constitution one has to look at the public notification issued by the President in that behalf. Therefore, in a particular case, notification referred to a particular Scheduled Caste in dealing with the question whether an applicant or a person belongs to SC or not, it is not required to see the applicant even if not a member of the said particular caste, he belongs to that caste by reason of some facts and materials. 20. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in B.Basavalingappa Vs. D.Muni-chinnappa & Ors: AIR 1965 SC 1269 held that it is not open to make any modification in the Presidential Order by producing evidence to show (for example) that though the 'Bhovi' caste is mentioned in the Presidential Order, 1950, 'Voddar' caste was the same as the Bhovi caste specified in the order and also that ordinarily whenever one caste has another name, it has been mentioned in bracket after it in the order. Para 6,7 and 10 of the AIR in B.Basavalingappa's case (supra) read as follows: "6. It may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in the Order by producing evidence to show (for example) that though caste A alone is mentioned in the Order, caste is also a part of caste A and therefore must be deemed to be included in caste A. It may also be accepted that wherever one caste has another name it has been mentioned in brackets after it in the Order: [see Aray, (Mala) Dakkal (Dokkalwar) etc.]. Therefore, generally speaking it would not be open to any person to lead evidence to establish that caste (in the example quoted above) is part of caste A notified in the, Order. Therefore, generally speaking it would not be open to any person to lead evidence to establish that caste (in the example quoted above) is part of caste A notified in the, Order. Ordinarily therefore it would not have been open in the present case to give evidence that the Voddar caste was the same as -the Bhovi caste specified in the Order for Voddar caste is not mentioned in brackets after the Bhovi caste in the Order. 7. But that in our opinion does not conclude the matter in the peculiar circumstances of the present case. The difficulty in the present case arises from the fact (which was not disputed before the High Court) that in the Mysore State as it was before the re-organisation of 1956 there was no caste known as Bhovi at all. The Order refers to a scheduled caste known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it was before 1956 and therefore it must be accepted that there was some caste which the President intended to include after consultation with the Rajpramukh in the Order, when the Order mentions the caste Bhovi as a scheduled caste. It cannot be accepted that the President included the caste Bhovi in the Order though there was no such caste at all in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956. But when it is not disputed that there was no caste specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before 1956, the only course open to courts to find out which caste was meant by Bhovi is to take evidence in that behalf. Jf there was a caste known as Bhovi as such in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956. evidence could not be given to prove that any other caste was included in the Bhovi caste. But when the undisputed fact is that there was no caste specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956 and one finds a caste mentioned as Bhovi in the Order, one has to determine which was the caste which was meant by that word on its inclusion in the Order. But when the undisputed fact is that there was no caste specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956 and one finds a caste mentioned as Bhovi in the Order, one has to determine which was the caste which was meant by that word on its inclusion in the Order. It is this peculiar circumstance therefore which necessitated the taking of evidence to determine which was the caste which was meant by the word 'Bhovi' used in the Order, when no caste was specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before the re-organization of 1956. 10. It is however urged that the Order does not mention the caste Boyi but the caste Bholvi and that wherever there is a difference in spelling of the same caste, the Order has provided for that also; (see for example, Bhambi, Bhambhi, Shenva, Chenva; etc.). Therefore when the Order provided the inclusion of the caste Bhovi therein it could not refer to Voddar caste, for the change of name that was sanctioned by the then government of Mysore in 1946 was from Voddar to Boyi. Here again there is force in the contention that where the same caste was spelt differently, the different spellings have been provided in the Order as illustrated already. 'But the same difficulty which faced us in considering the question whether Voddar caste was meant by the caste Bhovi included in the Order arises when we consider the difference in spellings, for it is not in dispute that there was no caste known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it existed in 1950 when the Order was passed. As the President could not have included in the Order a non- existent caste it means the word 'Bhovi' relates to some caste in Mysore as it was before 1956 and we have therefore to establish the identity of that caste and that can only be done by evidence. In that connection the High Court has held that ever since the Order of 1946, the Voddar caste has been variously spelt as Boyi, Bovi, and Bhovi in English, though the Kanada equivalent is one and the same. The High Court therefore has not attached any importance to the change in the English spelling in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The High Court therefore has not attached any importance to the change in the English spelling in the peculiar circumstances of this case. In this connection attention may be drawn to the notification of the then government of Mysore dated February 2,1946 where Voddar caste is spelt in three ways in the same notification; at one place it is spelt as Voddara, at another place as Yoddar.and at two places as Vodda. It seems therefore that we cannot attach undue importance to the spelling in English in this case when we know that there was no specific caste known as Bhovi in Mysore State as it was before 1956 and we have to determine which was the caste which was meant by the use of that term in the, Order. In this connection we may also draw attention to another copy of the same notification which was issued by another department of the Government. In that copy Voddara has been spelt as Vaddara and Boyis as Bovis. It seems to us therefore that the High Court was right in the peculiar circumstances of the present case in not attaching any importance to difference in spelling in English, and to treat Bhoviv as the same as Boyis. We do not think it necessary to refer to the various census reports, which have been referred to by the Tribunal and the High Court for they only show bow the same caste has been differently spelt. In the circumstances therefore we agree with the High Court that respondent No. 1 though Voddar by caste belongs to the scheduled caste of Bhovi mentioned in the Order. We may again repeat that we have referred to the evidence in this case only because there was undoubtedly no caste known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it was before 1956 and we had to find out therefore which caste was meant by the word Bhovi as used in the Order. But for this fact it would not have been open to any party to give evidence to the effect that (for- example) caste A mentioned in the Order includes or was the same as caste where caste A does exist in the area to which the Order applies." 21. But for this fact it would not have been open to any party to give evidence to the effect that (for- example) caste A mentioned in the Order includes or was the same as caste where caste A does exist in the area to which the Order applies." 21. The ratio decidendi of B.Basava-lingappa's case (supra) was also considered and followed by the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Bhaiya Lal Vs Harikishan Singh & Ors: AIR 1965 SCI 5 57 and held (para 8 of the AIR) that: "8. Incidentally, we may point out that the plea that the Dohar caste is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste cannot be entertained in the present proceedings in view of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. This Order has been issued by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution. Article 341 (1) provides that the President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races, or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. Sub-Article (2) lays down that Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. It is thus clear that in order to determine whether or not a particular caste is a scheduled caste within the meaning of Art. 341, one has to look at the public notification issued by the President in that behalf. In the present case, the notification refers to Chamar, Jatav or Mochi, and so, in dealing with the question in dispute between the parties, the enquiry which the Election Tribunal can hold is whether or not the appellant is a Chamar, Jatav or Mochi. The plea that though the appellant is not a Chamar as such, he can claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belongs to the Dobar caste which is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste, cannot be accepted. The plea that though the appellant is not a Chamar as such, he can claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belongs to the Dobar caste which is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste, cannot be accepted. It appears to us that an enquiry of this kind would not be permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Art. 341. In the case of B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa Civil Appeal No.401 of 1964, dated 23.9.1964: reported in AIR 1965 SC 1269 ) this Court had occasion to consider a similar question. The question which arose for decision in that case was whether respondent No. 1, though Voddar by caste, belonged to the scheduled caste of Bhovi mentioned in the Order, and while holding that an enquiry into the said question was permissible, the Court has elaborately referred to the special and unusual circumstances which justified the High Court in holding that Voddar caste was the same as the Bhovi caste within the meaning of the Order; otherwise the normal rule would be: "it may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in the Order by producing evidence to show, for example, that though caste A alone is mentioned in the Order, caste is also a part of caste A and, therefore, must be deemed to be included in caste A." That is another reason why the plea made by the appellant that the Dohar caste is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste and as such must be deemed to be included in the Order, cannot be accepted." 22. The ratios laid down in B.Basava-lingappa's case (supra) and Bhaiya Lai's case (supra) are also followed in Parsram &Anr Vs Shivchand & Ors: AIR 1969 SC 597 and held that: "7. A point very similar to the one before us came up for consideration in this Court in Bhaiya Lal v. Harikrishen Singh, ( AIR 1965 SC 1557 ).There, the appellant's election was challenged on the ground that he belonged to the Dohar caste and was not a chamar. Dealing with this point, it was stated by this Court: "the plea that the Dohar caste is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste cannot be entertained in the present proceedings in virtue of the Constitution (Scheduled . Castes') Order. 1950.", Reference was then made to Art. 341 of the Constitution, Cls. Dealing with this point, it was stated by this Court: "the plea that the Dohar caste is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste cannot be entertained in the present proceedings in virtue of the Constitution (Scheduled . Castes') Order. 1950.", Reference was then made to Art. 341 of the Constitution, Cls. 1 and 2 and it was said: "In order to determine whether or not a particular caste is a scheduled caste within the meaning of Article 341, one has to look at the public notification issued by the President in that behalf. In the present case, the notification refers to Chamar, Jatav or Mochi and so in dealing with the question in dispute between the parties, the enquiry which the Election Tribunal can hold is whether or not the appellant is a Chamar, Jatav or Mochi. The plea that though the appellant is not a Chamar as such, he can claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belongs to the Dohar caste which is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste, cannot be accepted. It appears to us that an enquiry of this kind would not be permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Article 341." These judgments are binding on us and we do not therefore think that it would be of any use to look into the gazetteers and the glossaries on the Punjab castes and tribes to which reference was made at the Bar to find out whether mochi and chamar in some parts of the State at least meant the same caste although there might be some difference in the professions followed by their members, the main difference being that Chamars skin dead animals which mochis do not. However that may be, the question not being open to agitation by evidence and being one the determination of which lies within the exclusive power of the President, it is not for us to examine it and come to a conclusion that if a person was in fact a mochi, he could still claim to belong to the scheduled caste of chamars and be allowed to contest an election on that basis. Quite a lot of evidence was adduced orally and also by documents before the learned trial Judge to show that Kriqhan Lal was a chamar and not a mochi. Quite a lot of evidence was adduced orally and also by documents before the learned trial Judge to show that Kriqhan Lal was a chamar and not a mochi. The learned Judge examined the evidence thoroughly and we do not propose to do the same again. In his view Krishan Lal was a mochi and not a chamar and we do not see any reason why we should come to any different conclusion." 23. The words "For the purposes of this Constitution in relation to that State" in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India had been considered and interpreted by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra & Anr Vs. Union of India & Anr: (1994) 5 SCC 244 and held that: 'The power of the President of India is limited to specifying the castes or Tribes, which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or a Union Territory, as the case may be. The Castes or Tribes have to be specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory. That means a given caste or tribe can be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State of Union Territory for which it is specified. Considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given case is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the * Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purpose of this Constitution." Therefore, it is clear that the scheduled caste "Jailia Kaibarta" which is specified in the State of Tripura in the Presidential Order cannot be same as that of the 'Jailia Kaibarta' community said to have been specified for the East Bengal (now Bangladesh) and as such, "Jailia Kaibarta" community of the East Bengal having the same nomenclature of "Jailia Kaibarta" community for Tripura in the Presidential Order cannot be entitled to the rights, privilege and benefits admissible to a member of Scheduled Caste of the Tripura State. Para 3, 6, 8 and 16 of the SCC in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate's case (supra) read as follows: "3. On a plain reading of clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 it is manifest that the power of the President is limited to specifying the castes or tribes which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or a Union Territory, as the case may be. Once a notification is issued under clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, Parliament can by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, specified in the notification, any caste or tribe but save for that limited purpose the notification issued under clause (1), shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. What is important to notice is that the castes or tribes have to be specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory. That means 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. What is important to notice is that the castes or tribes have to be specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory. That means 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. These are the relevant provisions with which we shall be concerned while dealing with the grievance made in this petition. 6. The Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs noticed that certificates belonging to a particular Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe were not issued strictly in accordance with the principles governing the issue of such certificates presumably on account of lack of understanding of the legal position regarding the concept of the term "residence" on the part of the authorities concerned. With a view to clarifying the legal position the communication of 22-3-1977 came to be issued. The relevant part of that communication may be reproduced for ready reference: "As required under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the President has, with respect to every State and Union Territory and where it is State after consultation with the Governor of the concerned State, issued orders notifying various Castes and Tribes as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory from time to time. The inter-State area restrictions have been deliberately imposed so that the people belonging to the specific community residing in a specific area, which has been assessed to qualify for the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status, only benefit from the facilities provided for them, (sic) Since the people belonging to the same caste but living in different State/Union Territories may not both be treated to belong to Scheduled Caste/Tribe or vice versa. Thus the residence of a particular person in a particular locality assumes a special significance. This residence has not to be understood in the liberal or ordinary sense of the word. On the other hand it connotes the permanent residence of a person on the date of the notification of the Presidential Order scheduling his caste/tribe in relation to that locality. This residence has not to be understood in the liberal or ordinary sense of the word. On the other hand it connotes the permanent residence of a person on the date of the notification of the Presidential Order scheduling his caste/tribe in relation to that locality. Thus a person who is temporarily away from his permanent place or abode at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order applicable in his case, say for example, to earn a living or seek education, etc., can also be regarded as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, if his caste/tribe has been specified in that order in relation to his State/Union Territory. But he cannot be treated as such in relation to the place of his temporary residence notwithstanding the fact that the name of his caste/tribe has been scheduled in respect of that area in any Presidential Order." The communication further states that with a view to ensuring the veracity of permanent residence of a person and that of the caste/tribe to which he claims to belong, the Government of India made a special provision in the pro form a prescribed for the issue of such certificates. In order to ensure that competent authorities should alone issue such certificates the Government of India (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) by a letter dated 6-8- 1975 indicated the authorities locality-wise who should issue the certificates. The communication then proceeds to add: "Thus the Revenue Authority of one District would not be competent to issue such a certificate in respect of persons belonging to another District. Nor can such an authority of one State/Union Territory issue such certificates in respect of persons whose place of permanent residence at the time of the notification of a particular Residential Order, has been in a different State/Union Territory." This was emphasised because only the revenue authorities of the locality of which the individual is the resident alone would have access to revenue records to be in a position to make reliable enquiries before the issuance of the certificate. In regard to persons born after the date of the notification of the relevant Presidential Order, the communication states that the place of residency for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe certificate is the place of permanent abode of their parents at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order under which they claim to belong to such a caste/tribe. 8. In course of time persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes who had migrated from one State to another in search of employment or for education purposes and the like, experienced great difficulty in obtaining Caste/Tribe Certificates from the State from which they had migrated. To remove this difficulty experienced by them the earlier instructions contained in the letter of 22.3.1977, and the subsequent letter of 29.3.1982, were modified, in that, the prescribed authority of a State/Union Territory was permitted to issue the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Certificate to a person who had migrated from another State on production of a genuine certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of the father's origin except where the prescribed authority considered a detailed enquiry necessary through the State of origin before issue of certificate. It was further stated that the certificate will be issued irrespective of whether the Caste/Tribe in question is scheduled or not in relation to the State/Union Territory to which the person has migrated. Of course, this facility did not alter the Scheduled Caste/Tribe status of the person in relation to the one or the other State. The revised form of the certificate was circulated. Further, it was clarified that a Scheduled Caste/Tribe person who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State for the purpose of education, employment, etc., will be deemed to be Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin only and will be entitled to derive benefits from that State and not from the State to which he had migrated. By this clarificatory order forwarded to Chief Secretaries of all States/'Union Territories, the only facility extended was that the prescribed authority of the State/Union Territory to which a person had migrated was permitted to issue the certificate to the migrant on production of the genuine certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of the father's origin provided that the prescribed authority could always enquire into the matter through the State of origin if he entertained any doubt. The certificate to be so issued would be in relation to the State/Union Territory from which the person concerned had migrated and not in relation to the State/Union Territory to which he had migrated. Therefore, the migrant would not be entitled to derive benefits in the State to which he. had migrated on the strength of such a certificate. This was reiterated in a subsequent letter dated 15.10.1987 addressed to Smt Shashi Misra, Secretary, Social Welfare, etc., in the State of Maharashtra. In paragraph 4 of that letter it was specifically stated: "Further, a Scheduled Caste person, who has migrated from the State of his origin, which is considered to be his ordinary place of residence after the issue of the first Presidential Order, 1950, can get benefit from the State of his origin and not from the State to which he has migrated." So stating the proposal regarding reduction in the period of cut-off point of 1950 for migration was spurned. It was stated that the proposal could have been taken care of only if the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were made on all-India basis which, it was said, was not feasible in view of the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. It will thus, be seen that so far as the. Government of India is concerned, since the date of issuance of the communication dated 22.3.1977, it has firmly held the view that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person who migrates from the State of his origin to another State in search of employment or for educational purposes or the like, cannot be treated as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of the State to which he migrates and hence he cannot claim benefit as such in the latter State. 16. 16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the fights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer to a question by Mr Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under: "He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area migrates to another part of the territory of India, which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claim from the local Government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal area? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. But so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practicably impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those which are covered by them....... Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to admission to the medical college on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin." 24. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate's case (supra) clearly held that only revenue authorities of the locality of which the individual is resident alone would have access to revenue record to be in a position to make reliable enquiry before issue of certificate and in regard to the person born after the notification of the relevant Presidential order, communication of the Government of India, the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 22.3.1997 states that the place of residency for the purpose of acquiring SC or ST Certificate, is the permanent abode of their parents at the time of notification of the Presidential Order under which they claim to belong to such a caste/tribe. In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner's father migrated to Tripura in the year. 1960 and therefore, the place of residency of the petitioner for the purpose of acquiring SC or ST Certificate, is the permanent abode of his parents at the time of notification of the Presidential Order, i.e. 1950 under which he claims to belong to "Jailia Kaibarta" community. 25. 1960 and therefore, the place of residency of the petitioner for the purpose of acquiring SC or ST Certificate, is the permanent abode of his parents at the time of notification of the Presidential Order, i.e. 1950 under which he claims to belong to "Jailia Kaibarta" community. 25. Over and above, Rule 5(2)(a) of the SC & ST Reservation Rule, 1992 clearly states that the competent authority, if satisfied, may issue the community or caste certificate to an applicant who has migrated to Tripura from another State on production of genuine community certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of his father's origin. Further Rule 5(2)(d) provides that the community certificate holder who is migrated to Tripura from his State of origin, for the purpose of seeking education, employment etc will be deemed to be SC/ST of the State of his origin and he will be entitled to deriye the benefit from the State of his origin and not from Tripura. Therefore, in the given case the petitioner will be SC of the State of his origin. 26. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs Dean, Seth GS.Medical College & Ors : (1990) 3 SCC 730 held that: "SC & ST belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas." The Apex Court further held that the expression "in relation to that State" would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights . granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. In Andhra Pradesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe may require protection because a boy or a child who grows in that area is inhibited or is at disadvantage. granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. In Andhra Pradesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe may require protection because a boy or a child who grows in that area is inhibited or is at disadvantage. In Maharashtra that caste or that tribe may not be so inhibited but other castes or tribes might be." Therefore, a member of community of Scheduled Caste specified for a particular State will not have the benefit of Scheduled Caste of that State in case he/she migrated to another State and he cannot enjoy the benefit of SC of the State from where he migrated. Para 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 21 and 22 of the SCC in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao's case (supra) read as follows: "6. The question, therefore, that arises in this case, is whether the petitioner can claim the benefit of being a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra though he had, as he states, a Scheduled Tribe certificate in the State of Andhra Pradesh? Inasmuch as we are not concerned in this application with the controversy as to whether the petitioner correctly or appropriately belongs to the Gouda community or not, or whether the petitioner had a proper certificate, it is desirable to confine the controversy to the basic question, namely, whether one who is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin and birth continues to have the benefits or privileges or rights in the state of migration or where he later goes. 7. In this connection, the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution have been noticed. These articles enjoin that the President after consultation with the Governor where the States are concerned, by public notification, may specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities, which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State under Article 341 and 342 Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory. The main question, therefore, is the specification by the President of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, for the State or Union Territory or part of the State. But this specification is 'for the purposes of this Constitution'. It is. The main question, therefore, is the specification by the President of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, for the State or Union Territory or part of the State. But this specification is 'for the purposes of this Constitution'. It is. therefore, necessary, as has been canvassed, to determine what the expression 'in relation to that state' in conjunction with 'for the purposes of this Constitution' seeks to convey. 9. It appears that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some States had to suffer the social disadvantages and did not have the facilities for development and growth. It is, therefore, necessary in order to make them equal in those areas where they have so suffered and are in the state of under development to have reservations or protection in their favour so that they can compete on equal terms with the more advantageous or developed sections of the community. Extreme social and economic backwardness arising out of traditional practices of untouchability is normally considered as criterion for including a community in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The social conditions of a caste, however, varies from state to state and it will not be proper to generalise any caste or any tribe as a Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste for the whole country. This, however, is a different problem whether a member of the Scheduled Caste in one part of the country who migrates to another State or any other Union Territory should continue to be treated as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in which he has migrated. That question has to be judged taking into consideration the interest and well-being of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the country as a whole. 10. It has, however, to be borne in mind that a man does not cease to belong to his caste by migration to a better or more socially free and liberal atmosphere. But if sufficiently long time is spent in socially advanced area then the inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging to a socially disadvantageous community do not continue and the natural talent of a man or a woman or a boy or girl gets full scope to flourish. But if sufficiently long time is spent in socially advanced area then the inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging to a socially disadvantageous community do not continue and the natural talent of a man or a woman or a boy or girl gets full scope to flourish. These, however, are problems of social adjustment i.e. how far protection has to be given to a certain segment of socially disadv-antaged community and for how long to become equal with others is a matter of delicate social adjustment. These must be so balanced in the mosaic of the country's integrity that no section or community should cause detriment or discontentment to other community or part of community or section. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from inabilities in those areas. In other words, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh do require necessary protection as balanced between other communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Maharashtra in the instant case, do require protection in the State of Maharashtra, which will have to be in balance to other communities. This must be the basic approach to the problem. If one bears this basic approach in mind, then the determination of the controversy in the instant case does not become difficult. For the purpose of understanding the problem, it may be worthwhile to refer to the Report of the Joint Committee of the Parliament on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Order Bill, 1967. It may also be worthwhile to refer to the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly on the 17th September, 1949 dealing with Articles 303 and 304, which later on became Articles 341 and 342 respectively. Dr. It may also be worthwhile to refer to the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly on the 17th September, 1949 dealing with Articles 303 and 304, which later on became Articles 341 and 342 respectively. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar moving the Resolution observed as follows: "That after article 300, the following articles be inserted: 300A.(1) The President may, after consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State, by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes races or tribes, which shall for purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the State. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued by the President under clause (1) of this article any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. 300B.(1) The President may after consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State, by public notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be scheduled tribes in relation to that State. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of scheduled tribes specified in a notification issued by the President under clause (1) of this article any Tribe or Tribal community or part of or group within any Tribe or Tribal community but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. The object of these two articles, as I stated, was to eliminate the necessity of burdening the Constitution with long lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is now proposed that the President, in consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State should have the power to issue a general notification in the Gazette specifying all the Castes and tribes or groups thereof deemed to be Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of the privileges which have been defined for them in the Constitution. The only limitation that has been imposed is this: that once a notification has been issued by the President, which, undoubtedly, he will be issuing in consultation with and on the advice of the Government of each State, thereafter, if any elimination was to be made from the List so notified or any addition was to be made, that must be made by Parliament and not by the President. The object is to eliminate any kind of political factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so published by the President." 14. Our attention was drawn to certain observations in Elizabeth Warburton v. James Loveland, [1832] HL 499. It is true that all provisions should be read harmoniously. It is also true that no provision should be so read as to make other provisions nugatory or restricted. But having regard to the purpose, it appears to us that harmonious construction enjoins that we should give to each expression-'in relation to that state' or "for the purposes of this Constitution"—its full meaning and give their full effect. This must be so construed that one must not negate the other. The construction that reservation made in respect of the Scheduled Caste or tribe of that State is so deter mined to be entitled to all the privileges and rights under the Constitution in that State would be the most correct way of reading, consistent with the language, purpose and scheme of the Constitution. Otherwise, one has to bear in mind that if reservations to those who are treated as Scheduled Caste or Tribe in Andhra Pradesh are also given to a boy or a girl who migrates and gets deducted in the State of Maharashtra or other States where that caste or tribe is not treated as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe then either reservation will have the effect of depriving the percentage to the member of that caste or tribe in Maharashtra who would be entitled to protection or it would denude the other non- Scheduled Castes or non-Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra to the proportion that they are entitled to. This cannot be logical or correct result designed by the Constitution. 21. We have reached the aforesaid conclusion on the interpretation of the relevant provisions. In this connection, it may not be inappropriate to refer to the views of Dr. This cannot be logical or correct result designed by the Constitution. 21. We have reached the aforesaid conclusion on the interpretation of the relevant provisions. In this connection, it may not be inappropriate to refer to the views of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as to the prospects of the problem that might arise, who stated in the Constituent Assembly Debates in reply to the question which was raised by Mr. Jai Pal Singh ("Safeguards for Scheduled Caste and Tribes-Founding Father's view" by H.S. Saksena, at p. 60) which are to the following effect: "He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a scheduled tribe living in a tribal area migrates to another part o/the territory of India, which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claim from the local government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing: the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal area? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. But, so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a scheduled tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practically impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those which are covered by them....." 22. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the medical college on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Certificate in Maharashtra. In the view we have taken, the question of petitioner's right to be admitted as being domicile does not fall for consideration." 27. The caste is to be determined on the basis of his/her parents, as caste is acquired by birth. In the view we have taken, the question of petitioner's right to be admitted as being domicile does not fall for consideration." 27. The caste is to be determined on the basis of his/her parents, as caste is acquired by birth. The Apex Court in a catena of cases held that entries in school register showing his/her father's case, particularly; pre-constitution period is of great evidentiary value in deciding/determining caste of an individual. Anthropological and ethnological perspectives are also relevant for determining the caste of a person. In the present case, petitioner's father, Paresh Chandra Das was born on 10.12.1928 and also the petitioner's father is also an educated person, therefore, the entries in the school register showing the petitioner's father's caste, particularly, pre-constitution period is of great evidentiary value. As discussed above, the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to show that his father's caste in the entry of the school register is a member of Scheduled Caste' Jailia Kaibarta'. Rather, service record of the petitioner's father shows that the caste of the petitioner's father is 'Kayastha' i.e. general. 28. It is fairly well settled law that withholding of relevant document or best evidence will have adverse inference. Therefore, there is no reason why there should not be adverse inference against the petitioner in his claim to be a member of the SC community of'Jailia Kaibarta' community, in the given case, as the petitioner did not produce the said best evidence or relevant evidence, i.e. entries of his father's caste in the school admission register, particularly, pre-constitution period; for this point, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala: (2006) 6SCC39. 29. The Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil&Anr VsAddl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors: (1994) 6 SCC 241 held that caste is determined on the basis of his/her parent, as caste is acquired by birth; and entries in school register showing his/her father's caste, particularly, pre-constitution period, is of great evidentiary value and also ethnological perspectives are relevant for determining caste of the person. The Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) streamlined the procedure for issuance of SC status certificate through scrutiny and their approval. The Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) streamlined the procedure for issuance of SC status certificate through scrutiny and their approval. Para 13 of the SCC in Kumari Madhuri PauT's case (supra) read as follows: "13.The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc, or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc, by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the fining is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post." 30. As per the procedure streamlined for issue of social status certificate and their scrutiny, the Vigilance officer would go to the local place of residence and original place, from which the candidate/applicant hails and resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hails from, and he should also examine the school record, birth registration, if any. In the present case, the Vigilance Officer never went to the place from where he (petitioner's father) originally hails from, i.e. original place of petitioner's father as petitioner's father had migrated to Tripura as late as 1960 from Bangladesh via Calcutta. 30.1 Para 13.7 of the SCC in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) clearly states that only when the report of the Vigilance Cell is in favour of the candidates and claim for Scheduled Caste Certificates are found to be genuine and true no further action need be taken. This para is to be read jointly with the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1962, relevant portions of which has been quoted above, had clearly considered and discussed. In the given case, it is clear that the Vigilance Cell did not submit the Vigilance report after fully complying with the procedures and requirements for holding enquiry if the petitioner is member of Scheduled Caste. In the given case, it is clear that the Vigilance Cell did not submit the Vigilance report after fully complying with the procedures and requirements for holding enquiry if the petitioner is member of Scheduled Caste. None of the witnesses of the original place of the petitioner's father, i.e., Hidrabad Village, Bangladesh from where the petitioner's father had migrated to Tripura was examined and also the Vigilance Officer never went to the original place from where petitioner's father hailed from. Caste is acquired by birth and petitioner's father is a migrant to Tripura and he hailed from East Bengal (now Bangladesh). But the Vigilance Officer examined some migrants to Tripura as witnesses at Tripura; over and above, those migrants to Tripura are not from the original place of the petitioner's father, i.e. Hidrabad Vilage, Bangladesh and their statements are only hearsay or/their opinion. The statements of the migrants to Tripura recorded by the Vigilance Officer read as follows: "2. Sri Chan Mohan Das (80), s/o Lt. Jagab-andhu Das of A.D.Nagar Road No. 1, Tripura:-, He stated that their native village was Arival Village under Brahmanbaria Sub-Divn (now Bangladesh). He is from Jaila Kaibrata Community. Among the Jaila Kaibarta of the then East Bengal a word was used to identify the Jalia Kaibarta. It was "Choudda Mauja" means fourteen Mouja (Revenue Village) where their community members were prevalent. Among those 14 Mouja- Simrail, Nununpur, Bankail, Shabajpur, Haidrabad, Majlishpur etc villages were their. The matrimonial relations were commonly held among these villagers as they were of the same community. The witness knew Sri Sitanath Das, grand father of Partha Das as well as Paresh Das, father of Partha Das because they were the residents of Haidrabad. All the villagers were of Jalia Kaibarta Community in which part of that village (Para) they were residing. Even their migrating to this country the witness had a very good relation with the family of Partha Das. He has no doubt that Sri Partha Das is a member of the SC of Jalia Kaibarta Community. 3. Priyatosh Das, s/o Lt Satish Ch.Das of Ramthakurpura, A.D.Nagar Road No. 1, Tripura:-He stated that he is a member of SC of Jalia Kaibarta Community. He is well known to Sri Partha Das, s/o Paresh Ch Das of their area and Partha Das is also a member of SC of Jalia Kaibarta Community. 3. Priyatosh Das, s/o Lt Satish Ch.Das of Ramthakurpura, A.D.Nagar Road No. 1, Tripura:-He stated that he is a member of SC of Jalia Kaibarta Community. He is well known to Sri Partha Das, s/o Paresh Ch Das of their area and Partha Das is also a member of SC of Jalia Kaibarta Community. His father Satish Das and Paresh Das, (father of Partha Das) were of same age and they had a friendly relation. The previous residence of witness was at Kuti of Brahmanbari Sub-Divn and the house of Paresh Das was at Haidrabad. He had heard from his father that in Haidrabad village the people of Jalia Kaibarta were residing at that time, so his father Satish Das used to visit Haidrabad and knew Paresh Das and Sitanath Das (grandfather of Partha Das). At present he has also a close relation with the family of Partha Das and he remains invited in various social and religious functions in the house of Partha Das. Such as he attended the marriage ceremony of Partha Das, funeral ceremony of Paresh Das, annap-rasan ceremony of the son of Partha etc. At that time, he has seen that the rituals & customs of the family of Partha Das are similar to those of the witness. From all these, he believes that Partha Das is a member of Jalia Kaibarta Community. 4. Sri Binoy Deb (56) s/o Lt.Sukumar Deb of Ramthakur Para, North Badharghat, Tripura:- He stated that he is well known to Sri Partha Das, s/o Lt Paresh Ch.Das of their area. He also knows that Partha Das is SC of Jalia Kaibarta Community. In the year 1962-63 his father Sukumar Deb and Paresh Das (father of Partha) were working in "Kohinor Press" near Motor Stand. Later on, Sukumar Deb was a close friend of Paresh Das since their stay at East Bengal (presently Bangladesh). His father Sukumar Deb was the only son of his grand father, similarly Paresh Das was also the only son of his father Sitanath Das. In East Bengal. Sitanath Das was residing in Haidrabad village and native village of the witness was Shulpur. both under Brahmanbaria- Sub Divn. In Haidrabad most of the villagers were Jalia Kaibarta. After migrating to India Sitanath Das (father of Paresh Das) had a small shop in their house where he sold dryfish and other grocery items. In East Bengal. Sitanath Das was residing in Haidrabad village and native village of the witness was Shulpur. both under Brahmanbaria- Sub Divn. In Haidrabad most of the villagers were Jalia Kaibarta. After migrating to India Sitanath Das (father of Paresh Das) had a small shop in their house where he sold dryfish and other grocery items. They used to knit the fishing net and make other fishing equipment by bamboo (Chai) etc. in their house and would catch fish from their own pond. It was clear from their manners & behaviors, rituals & customs, that they are from lower caste although with the advancement of education nowadays it is not so much visible. 5. Smti Asha Rani Das, W/o Lt Amar Das of Subhashpalli, A.D.Nagar, Tripura:- She stated that they are of scheduled caste community and she is staying in this area since 1950. Her parental house is also in this area. Her husband Lt.Amar Das's native village was Shibpur, Brahmanbaria sub-Divn. She knows the family members of Partha Das of her area and both the families are in a very good terms. Because, her husband Amar Das and paresh Das (father of Partha Das) were good friends since their childhood. Sbibpur was one of the nearby villages of Haidrabad of Brahmanbaria where Amar Das & Paresh Das lived respectively. After coming to this country also they had a very cordial relation. Paresh Das is residing here since last 45/46 years. They are of Jalia Kaibarta Community. In early days when the witness would go to their house, she would see that sometimes they would keep fish fingerlings in large containers (Deg). They would cultivate fish in their ponds. Although after Paresh Babu had joined in service since then they had left the business. But till date it is clear from their manners, culture, rituals that they are from SC community. 6. Sri Nripendra Ch.Chakraborty (81) s/o Lt.Mahendra Ch.Chakraborty of Ramthakur Para, North Badhargat, Tripura:- He stated that he is staying in that locality since 1962 and was serving in Education Department Lt.Paresh Das (father of Partha Das and his family came in this are after a few years they had come. At that time wh en a new family would come in the area, the local people would discuss about the caste, creed and the native village of the new comers. At that time wh en a new family would come in the area, the local people would discuss about the caste, creed and the native village of the new comers. People would search about about their native village in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Similarly when Lt.Sitanath Das and his son Paresh Das and their family settled in this village. the other residents/villages of this area would talk among themselves that. Sitanath Das, was of Jalia Kaibarta Community. It was appeared, from the way of talking, manners, behaviour, customs etc of Sitanath Das and his son Paresh Das, that they were from the lower caste like Jalia Kaibarta; Since that (mid sixty's) the witness knew that Paresh Das was of Jalia Kaibarta community. At present the witness can not see well so he can not sign his name. (LTI is taken in the statement). 7. Sri Niranjan Das (52) s/o Lt. Man Mohan Das of Ramthakur Para, A.D.Nagar Road No.1, Tripura:- He stated that - he is involved with the "Tripura Tapasili Samanwoy Samity" (Tripura SC co-ordination Committee) for last 30 (thirty) years. At present he is the local committee member of Bardwali Local Committee of this organisatin and he knows almost all the families of SC community of this area. So he personally knows Partha Das, s/o Lt.Paresh Ch.Das. Partha Das and his brothers are the members of his organization i.e. TTSS. After examining all the papers of the father of Partha Das and being confirmed that he is a member of SC community, he was allowed the membership of TTSS. The witness has got no doubt that Sri Partha Das is SC of Jalia Kaibarta Community. Besides this, they had a pond in their house. They had also fishing net. The witness has personally caught fish from their pond in several occasions earlier. On asking the witness also disclosed that, about 3/4 years back the then member of AMC SC sub-committee Sri Chandan Das asked him whether Partha Das is SC community member. In reply the witness Niranjan Das told to Chandan Das that, Partha Das is a genuine SC of Jalia Kaibarta community and there is no doubt in it. 8. Sri Bhubanjoy Das, s/o Sri Chan Mohan Das of AD Nagar Rod No. 1, Tripura:- He stated that he is known to Sri Partha Das, s/o Paresh Das Ramthakur Para. In reply the witness Niranjan Das told to Chandan Das that, Partha Das is a genuine SC of Jalia Kaibarta community and there is no doubt in it. 8. Sri Bhubanjoy Das, s/o Sri Chan Mohan Das of AD Nagar Rod No. 1, Tripura:- He stated that he is known to Sri Partha Das, s/o Paresh Das Ramthakur Para. He knows very well that Sri Paresh DAs is a person of Jalia Kaibarta community. He has heard about Paresh Das and Sitanath Das from his father time to time in connection with the stories of their native village at East Bengal (now Bangladesh). The witness is personally attached to the "Tripura Tapashili Samanway Samity" (TTSS) since 1988. From 1999 to 2010 he was also the Secretary of M.B.Tilla Committee of this organization. He himself is also a member of Jalia Kaibarta Community. In 1988 there were total 375 memebrs of TTSS in the whole M.B.Tilla (including their area). At that time also Partha Das was a member of TTSS. The witness would regularly visit the house of Partha Das for collection of subscription of their organization. He has no doubt that Partha Das is member of Jalia Kaibarta Community." 30.2 Rule 3 of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992 clearly provides that the claim of a person that he belongs to SC community shall be proved by a caste certificate issued by the competent authority in Form No.1 and the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area where the applicant/that person originally resides will be the competent authority to issue SC Certificate. The documents discussed by the Vigilance Officer in his report for proving that the writ petitioner belongs to "Jailia Kaibarta" community ofTripura are not the documents prescribed by the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules for proving the claim of the petitioner to be a member of SC community. One of the documents considered by the Vigilance Officer in his report is the Certificate dated 21.06.1984 which was under scrutiny/which was in dispute; and other documents are not the documents issued by the competent authority for proving that the writ petitioner is a member of the "Jailia Kaibarta' community. It also appears that the other documents issued by the authorities, who are not competent to issue SC Certificate, are based on the said SC Certificate dated 21.06.1984. It also appears that the other documents issued by the authorities, who are not competent to issue SC Certificate, are based on the said SC Certificate dated 21.06.1984. It is also reiterated that the Hon'ble MLA and the Principal of the College are not the competent authorities to issue SC Certificate and also they are not the competent authorities for deciding if a person is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. As stated above, minus the said SC Certificate, the remaining documents considered by the Vigilance Officer will have no force in claiming to be member of the SC "Jailia Kaibarta" community of Tripura by the petitioner. 31. The Apex Court in Director of Tribal Welfare, Gov to A.P. Vs Laveti Giri & Anr: (1995) 4 SCC 32 held that burden of proof is on the person who claim himself to be a member of the S.C. The Service Record of the petitioner's father mentioning his caste is also relevant document for deciding if he is a member of the SC. The Apex Court also reiterated the guidelines laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) in Para 6 and 8 of the SCC in Director of Tribal Welfare's case (supra), which read as follows: "6. The learned Single Judge has pointed out that in Writ Petition No. 9071/82 filed by the sister of the respondent, the father of the respondent and his sister were called upon to produce the social status certificate from the native Tehsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer but they failed to produce the same. It was also noted that Vasudeva Rao brother of Hanumantha Rao has a son by name Ravi Kumar. He also claimed social status as a Konda Kapu for admission into M.B.B.S. Course. His Writ Petition No.6637/79 was disposed of on November 3,1979 finding that L. Ravi Kumar's claim for social status as Konda Kapu was doubted. The matter was referred to the Director wherein it was held that Ravi Kumar was not Konda Kapu. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court adopted its traditional approach of placing burden of proof of social status founded on the entries in Government record etc, and called upon the State to rebut it on the touch-stone of Evidence Act. We are unable to appreciate the view taken by the Division Bench. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court adopted its traditional approach of placing burden of proof of social status founded on the entries in Government record etc, and called upon the State to rebut it on the touch-stone of Evidence Act. We are unable to appreciate the view taken by the Division Bench. Burden of proof of social status is always on the person who profound it to seek constitutional socioeconomic advantages. It is no part of the duty of the State to disprove or its reverse. The criteria to obtain caste certificate from Native Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer is relevant for the reason that Scheduled Tribes generally live in forest areas, mountainous regions and specified; pockets and will be known to local officers or easily accessible for verification. The respondent is not as innocent as the Division Bench appears to have proceeded. It is seen that the father of the respondent deliberately abstained to appear before the Director. The social status to the daughter was required to be produced from the Tahsildar of the native jurisdiction but failed. Though he lived in Malakpet within the jurisdiction of Musheerabad Tahsildar. he produced the certificate from Tehsildar. Vallabhnagar in Ranga Reddy District who had no jurisdiction to issue it. Yet he had chosen to obtain from him and the officer was a willing and accommodating one to issue false certificate. When the Principal doubted its correctness and referred the matter to the Director of Tribal Welfare, the father admittedly did not appear to establish the social status. Though respondent, minor appeared before the Director, his statement cannot be used as evidence. His father is a Government servant. He knows the consequences and so he deliberately absented from being present before Director. Instead he chose to send his son with records. The Director considered the record and concluded that the respondent is not a Scheduled Tribe but he is a "Kapu" by caste as evidenced by the school certificate of his father declared to be a Kapu. It bears evidentiary value and relevant material evidence. The subsequent record manufactured by his father and his continuance in service on that basis, even If it is accepted by the Department, is not conclusive and cannot be implicitly relied as gospel truth. It bears evidentiary value and relevant material evidence. The subsequent record manufactured by his father and his continuance in service on that basis, even If it is accepted by the Department, is not conclusive and cannot be implicitly relied as gospel truth. The totamic characteristic are required to be satisfied as noted in detail in the Annexure 1 f the GO. referred herein before. They had not satisfied the Director by furnishing those characteristic for verification and to take a decision thereon. The Division Bench had totally omitted to consider all these aspects and characterized the finding of the Director to be based on conjectures and surmises. It is an accepted position that the Director, Tribal Department established a research wing and made scientific study of the, endemic characteristic, cultural moorings habits, their modes of marriages customs etc. of different particular tribal community. The questionnaire was'prepared as per the Annexure in the GO. obviously. Knowing that he cannot satisfy the required features the father of respondent deliberately abstained to appear before the Director, Tribal Welfare. Instead he got filed the writ petition in the High Court put the burden of proof on the State that the Court relieved the father of proving the status of his son's claim to be not a Scheduled Tribe. This Court while considering the similar claims and school register of the father of Madhuri and Saritha in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development: (1994) 6 SCC 241 . held that the entry in the school certificate of the caste of the father bears relevance and would prove to be false claim as Scheduled Tribe. This Court has laid guidelines how the matter required to be dealt with and stated in paragraph 13 (SCC pp.254-57) thereof. 8. While reiterating the above guidelines to be workable principles, it is high time that the Government of India would have the matter examined in greater detail and bring about a uniform legislation with necessary guidelines and rules prescribing penal consequences on persons who flout the Constitution and corner the benefits reserved for the real tribals, etc. etc., so that the menace of fabricating the false records and to gain unconstitutional advantages by plain/spurious persons could be prevented. Lest they would defeat the Constitutional objective of rendering socio-economic justice envisaged under Article 46 in the Preamble of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38 and 39. etc., so that the menace of fabricating the false records and to gain unconstitutional advantages by plain/spurious persons could be prevented. Lest they would defeat the Constitutional objective of rendering socio-economic justice envisaged under Article 46 in the Preamble of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38 and 39. 32. The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors Vs Ravi Prakash Babulal Singh Parmar & Anr: (2007) 1 SCC 80 held that when a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled to it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be hapless spectator in the matter and also, further held that conclusion of the High Court that no inquiry is permissible at all once it is found that the person concerned in whose favour certificate has been granted to be notified as ST could not be accepted. Para 17, 22, 23, 24, 32 and 33 of the SCC in Ravi Prakash Babulal Singh Parmar's case (supra) read as follows: "17. We. with respect, do not agree with the conclusion of the High Court that no enquiry was permissible at all, once it is found that the person concerned in whose favour a certificate had been granted to be notified as a Scheduled Tribe. 22. The said decision, therefore, is an authority for the proposition that only because a claim is made by a person that he belongs to a member of a tribe notified to be Scheduled Tribe in terms of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, no immunity in absolute terms can be claimed. 23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst citizens. Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter. 24. We. with respect, fail to appreciate the approach of the High Court as it proceeded on the premise that once the surname of Respondent tallied with the name of the tribe, which finds mention in one or the other entries of the schedule appended to the 1976 Order, the same must be treated to be sacrosanct and no enquiry in relation to the correctness of the said certificate can be gone into by any Committee. The observations and directions of the High Court, in our considered opinion, were not only contrary to the judgments of the Court but also fall short of the ground realities. 32. The said decision, therefore, is also an authority for the proposition that the Committee can go into the question as to whether a caste certificate has rightly been issued or not. The authorities concerned were also found to have some role to play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate. 33. We may notice that in Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar : (2005) 7 SCC 690 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court opined that the employee concerned having played fraud for obtaining an appointment, should not be allowed to get the benefit thereof. [See also Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF: 2006 (2) SCC 541 , ESI Corp v. Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union: 2006 (6) SCC 604 and Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra : 2006 (7) SCC 501 ." 33. The Apex Court in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors: (2012) 1 SCC 113 held that burden of proof lies on the applicant who claim to be member of the SC. The Apex Court in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors: (2012) 1 SCC 113 held that burden of proof lies on the applicant who claim to be member of the SC. In the present case, oldest document so far as the caste of the petitioner is concerned is service record of the petitioner's father wherein the caste of the petitioner's father is 'Kayastha'. Para 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the SCC in Anand's case (supra) read as follows: "22. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits, etc., of the applicant. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim: (i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-Independence documents. In case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In fact, the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant; (ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernization and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernization and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a scheduled Tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim. 23. Needless to add that the burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant. He has to produce all the requisite documents in support of his claim. The Caste Scrutiny Committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim and therefore, can only scrutinize the documents and material produced by the applicant. In case the material produced by the applicant does not prove his claim, the Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove his claim. 24. Having examined the present case on the touchstone of the aforesaid broad parameters, we are of the opinion that the claim of the appellant has not been examined properly. We feel that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant in support of his claim had been lightly brushed aside by the Vigilance Officer as also by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Insofar as the High Court is concerned, it has rejected the claim solely on the basis of the affinity test. It is pertinent to note that some of these documents date back to the pre-Independence era, issued to the appellant's grandfather and thus, hold great probative value as there can be no reason for suppression of facts to claim a non-existent benefit to the "Haibi" Scheduled Tribe at that point of time. 25. It is pertinent to note that some of these documents date back to the pre-Independence era, issued to the appellant's grandfather and thus, hold great probative value as there can be no reason for suppression of facts to claim a non-existent benefit to the "Haibi" Scheduled Tribe at that point of time. 25. From the documents produced by the appellant, it appears that his near paternal relatives had been regarded as belonging to the "Haibi" Scheduled Tribe. The Village Officer's report does not indicate that the documents produced by the appellant in support of his claim are false. It merely refers to the comments made by the headmaster with reference to the school records of the appellant's father's maternal brother and his aunt, which had been alleged to be tampered with, to change the entry from Kishti Halba to Halba and nothing more. Neither the headmaster was examined, nor any further enquiry was conducted to verify the veracity of the headmaster's statement. It is of some importance to note at this juncture that in similar cases, involving the appellant's first cousin and his paternal uncle, the High Court, while observing non-application of mind by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, had decided a similar claim in their favour." 34. As discussed above, the documents so far as produced by the petitioner for proving his claim that he is a member of "Jailia Kaibarta' community are not documents prescribed for proving the caste of tribe under Rule 3 of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992 except the one i.e. caste certificate dated 21.06.1984 which was issued without following the procedure and requirements prescribed under the Jripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992, neglecting the touchstone of the ratios laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above. 35. The Apex Court in SP Chen-galvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs & Ors: (1994) 1 SCC 1 held that non disclosure of relevant and material documents with a view to obtain advantage amount to fraud and one should come to the court with clean hands. Para 5 of the SCC in SP ChengalvarayaNaidu's case (supra) read as follows: "5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. Para 5 of the SCC in SP ChengalvarayaNaidu's case (supra) read as follows: "5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation." 36. The Apex Court in Dalip Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors: (2010) 2 SCC 114 held that materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final". Para 1 -10 and 16 to 24 of the SCC in Dalip Singh's case (supra) read as follows: "1. Para 1 -10 and 16 to 24 of the SCC in Dalip Singh's case (supra) read as follows: "1. For many centuries. Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e.. 'Satya (truth') and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir. Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical 'tneans for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 3. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das: AIR 1963 SC 1558 , this Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the leave granted to the appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p. 1558) "It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterizes as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked." 4. In Welcome Hotel and others v. State of AP: (1983) 4 SCC 575 the Court held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. 5. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and v. Govt of Karnataka :( 1991) 3 SCC 261, the Court .denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed: (SCCp. 263, para 2) "......Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non- disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions." 6. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions." 6. In S.P. ChengalvarayaNaidu v. Jagannath: (1994) 4 SCC 1 , the Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. V. S B I: (2007) 8 SCC 449 , it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R v Kensington Income Tax Commissioners (1917) 1 K.B.486, and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd case (2007) 8 SCC 449 , SCC p. 462, para 35) "In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible." 8. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P.: (2007) 4 SCC 221 , the Court held that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party. It confers discretion on this Court to grant leave to appeal in appropriate cases. In other words, the Constitution has not made the Supreme Court a regular Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It confers discretion on this Court to grant leave to appeal in appropriate cases. In other words, the Constitution has not made the Supreme Court a regular Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. This Court only intervenes where justice, equity and good conscience require such intervention. 9. In Sunil Poddar v Union Bank of India : (2008) 2 SCC 326 , the Court held that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the case should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings, then the Court will non-suit him on the ground of contumacious conduct. 10. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL: (2008) 12 SCC 481. the court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G.Jayshree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel: (2009) 3 SCC 141 . ** ** ** ** 16. The legal representatives of Shri Praveen Singh jointly filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 22790/1990 and prayed for quashing of orders dated 27.12.1975, 8.7.1976, 7.8.1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively. They also prayed for issue of a direction to the Appellate Authority to remand the case to the Prescribed Authority for entertaining their objections. The legal representatives of Shri Praveen Singh jointly filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 22790/1990 and prayed for quashing of orders dated 27.12.1975, 8.7.1976, 7.8.1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively. They also prayed for issue of a direction to the Appellate Authority to remand the case to the Prescribed Authority for entertaining their objections. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the following statement was made: "That the petitioners late father, against whom the proceedings had been initiated under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act, filed application on 8.7.1976 supported by an affidavit stating therein clearly that he was seriously ill for about ten months as such he was not in a position to file objection, and as a matter of fact he did not have any knowledge of the date of the proceedings that were being conducted before the prescribed authority. True copy of the application dated 8.7.1976 of petitioner's late father is annexed herewith as Annexure 2. True copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application dated 8.7.1976 of the petitioner's father is annexed herewith as annexure 3." (Emphasis added) 17. By an order dated 7.9.1990, the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court stayed the operation of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. The interim order remained operative till 21.5.2001 that is the date on which the writ petition was finally dismissed and during the interregnum the appellant continued to enjoy the property. In the special leave petition filed against the order of the High Court, notice was issued on 12.10.2001, but the appellant's prayer for stay was declined. Thereafter, the surplus land of the tenure-holder was distributed among the landless persons who were joined as parties pursuant to order dated 27.3.2006 passed in I. A. No. 9/2004. 18. After service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed counter in the form of an affidavit of Shri Pradip Kumar Singh, Additional Tehsildar, District Bijnor, U.P. In his affidavit, Shri Pradip Kumar gave details of the steps taken by the Prescribed Authority in terms of Section 10(1) and 10(2) of the Act and made a categorical assertion that notice issued on 29.11.1975 was duly served upon Shri Praveen Singh on 3.12.1975. This is evident from paragraphs 4(iv) and (v) of the counter affidavit read as under: "(iv) That the averments of facts made in the list of dates against date 7.7.1976 are not admitted being incorrect. The notice in CLH Form No. 4 having been served on the tenure-holder on 3.12.1975, it was for him to have filed his objection. It was for the tenure-holder to have managed his affairs. It is not for a Court or an Authority to communicate to the tenure-holder each and every order passed by it once service of the notice is complete, the Act does not require that each and every date of proceedings and the copy or information about the final order ex parte or otherwise be served on him. The tenure-holder avoided to file his objections since he had none. The statement of surplus land is prepared by the revenue authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Act which is prepared on the basis of revenue records of land held by a tenure-holder in his name and there is 'Presumption of correctness of the revenue record'. (v) That the averments of fact in list of date against date 8.7.1976 are not admitted as stated. It is submitted that an application dated 8.7.1976 filed by the tenure-holder did not dispute service of notice in CLH Form No. 4 dated 29.11.1975. The application was of a general nature. If a tenure-holder having been asked to file objections within 15 days of the date of service of him 'chooses not to do so, would proceed to a presumption that he has nothing to say. Section 11 the Act provides that where a tenure-holder chooses not to dispute and not to file any objection to the statement prepared by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10 of the Act within the stipulated period, the Prescribed Authority 'shall accordingly determine the surplus land of the tenure-holder. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act further provides that where an application is made by a tenure- holder within thirty days of the date of an order under sub-section (11) of the Act, that being a statutory duly cast on the Prescribed Authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act further provides that where an application is made by a tenure- holder within thirty days of the date of an order under sub-section (11) of the Act, that being a statutory duly cast on the Prescribed Authority. In the present case the Prescribed Authority after passing order dated 27.12.1975 fixed the next date as 27.1.1976 i.e. after 30 days and it is only on 27.1.1976 that the Prescribed Authority sent notification regarding publication of surplus land in official Gazette which was so published on 5.6.1976." 19. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, son of the appellant Dalip Singh and grandson of late Shri Praveen Singh filed rejoinder affidavit dated 18th February, 2002. In paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit Shri Sunil Kumar Singh made the following statement:- "That it is denied categorically that the father of the petitioner had ever received the notice dated 29.11.1975 along with the statement of surplus land, prepared under section 10(1) of the Act. It is humbly stated that father of the petitioner could not file any show cause without going through the above referred statement prepared under Section 10(1) of the Act." 20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the record. In our opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that the tenure-holder Shri Praveen Singh did not state correct facts in the application filed by him on 8.7.1976 before the Prescribed Authority for setting aside the ex parte order and the appellant did not approach the High Court with clean hands inasmuch as, by making a misleading statement in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, an impression was created that the tenure-holder did not know of the proceedings initiated by the Prescribed Authority. By making the said statement, the appellant succeeded in persuading the High Court to pass an interim order which resulted in frustrating the efforts made by the concerned authority to distribute the surplus land among landless persons. Even before this Court, a patently false statement has been made in the rejoinder affidavit on the issue of receipt of notice dated 29.11.1975 by Shri Praveen Singh. 21. Even before this Court, a patently false statement has been made in the rejoinder affidavit on the issue of receipt of notice dated 29.11.1975 by Shri Praveen Singh. 21. A perusal of application dated 8.7.1976 submitted by Shri Praveen Singh for setting aside ex parte order dated 27.12.1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority makes it clear that he had pleaded his continuous illness for ten months as the cause for his inability to file objection. In paragraph 2 of the application, Shri Praveen Singh made a suggestive assertion that he had no knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the Prescribed Authority and he came to know about the case having been decided ex parte only on 7.7.1976 when he went to Lekhpal to procure memo. There was not even a whisper in the application that notice dated 29.11.1975 issued by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of the Act had not been served upon him and on that account he could not file objections within 15 days. 22. The application filed by Shri Praveen Singh was not supported by any medical certificate or other evidence which could prima facie establish that he was really sick for ten months. This is the reason why the Prescribed Authority refused to reconsider order dated 27.11.1975 and the Appellate Authority declined to entertain his prayer for remand of the case to the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of fresh determination of surplus area case. Notwithstanding this, in the writ petition filed before the High Court a misleading statement was made that due to serious illness, Shri Praveen Singh could not file objection and, as a matter of fact, he did not have any knowledge of the dates of proceedings which were conducted by the Prescribed Authority. In view of that statement, the learned Single Judge of the High Court felt persuaded to stay the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority which, as mentioned above, resulted in frustration of the action to be taken by the concerned authority for distribution of the surplus land to landless persons for a good period of more than eleven years and enabled the heirs of Shri Praveen Singh to retain possession of the surplus land and enjoy the same. Before the High Court also, no evidence was produced in support of the assertion regarding serious illness of Shri Praveen Singh. 23. Before the High Court also, no evidence was produced in support of the assertion regarding serious illness of Shri Praveen Singh. 23. Insofar as this Court is concerned. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, grandson of Shri Praveen Singh and son of the appellant, boldly made a false statement that his grandfather did not receive notice dated 29.11.1975 along with the statement of surplus land prepared under Section 10(1) and he could not file any show cause without going through the statement. We are amazed at the degree of audacity with which Shri Sunil Kumar Singh could make a patently false statement on oath. 24. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order under challenge or entertain the appellant's prayer for setting aside the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority." 37. The Apex Court in Ritesh Tewari & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors: (2010) 10 SCC 677 held that power under Article 226 of the constitution of India is discretionary and supervisory in nature; it is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. Para 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the SCC in Ritesh Tewari's case (supra) read as follows: "26. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the court. However, being that the power is discretionary, the court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest are coalesce generally. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. Petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner. (Vide Champalal Binani Vs. CIT: (1971) 3 SCC 20 ; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shrike & Ann v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 6 SCC 622 ; LIC v. Asha Goel: (2001) 2 SCC 160 ; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills (2002) 3 SCC 496 ; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan: (2003) 6 SCC 545 ; and Punjab Roadways, v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport: (2010) 5 SCC 235 ). 27. Where a party's claim is not founded on valid grounds, the party cannot claim equity. A party that claims equity must come before the court with clean hands as equities have to be properly worked out between parties to ensure that no one is allowed to have their pound of flesh vis-a-vis the others unjustly, (vide: Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim (2001) 5 SCC 629 ) 28. In A P State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re- Rolling Mills: (1994) 2 SCC 647 , this Court observed:- (SCC p.662, para 18 "Equity is always known to defend the law from clefty evasions and new subtelities invented to evade law." 29. In A P State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re- Rolling Mills: (1994) 2 SCC 647 , this Court observed:- (SCC p.662, para 18 "Equity is always known to defend the law from clefty evasions and new subtelities invented to evade law." 29. In M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana: (1984) 4 SCC 371 , this Court held: (SCC p.374, para 5) "5.......it is open to the High Court to consider whether, in the exercise of its undoubted discretionary jurisdiction, it should decline relief to such petitioner if the grant of relief would defeat the interests of justice. The Court always has power to refuse relief where the petitioner seeks to invoke its writ jurisdiction in order to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetrate an unjust gain." 30. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 considered the scope of equity jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and pointed out as follows: (SCC p.486, para 5) "It is the responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good." 38. The Apex Court in Abhyudya Sanstha Vs Union of India: (2011) 6 SCC 145 held that petitioner must come with clean hands for obtaining interim order; and for the injury suffered by the students due to misrepresentation of fact, compensation of Rs.l lakh had been awarded by the Apex Court to each of the students. 39. The Apex Court in A Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by its President & Ors: (2012) 6 SCC 430 held that every litigant is expected to state the truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts. It is imperative that the Judges must have complete grip of the facts before they start dealing with the case. Para 23,24,26,27,28 and 29 of the SCC in A Shanmugam's case (supra) read as follows: "23. We reiterate the immense importance and relevance of purity of pleadings. The pleadings need to be critically examined by the judicial officers or Judges both before issuing the ad interim injunction and/or framing of issues. 24. Para 23,24,26,27,28 and 29 of the SCC in A Shanmugam's case (supra) read as follows: "23. We reiterate the immense importance and relevance of purity of pleadings. The pleadings need to be critically examined by the judicial officers or Judges both before issuing the ad interim injunction and/or framing of issues. 24. The entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and argument sof the parties. Truth is the basis of the justice delivery system. This Court in Dalip Singh V State of U.P: (2010) 2 SCC 114 observed that: (SCC p.116, para 1): "1. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However. post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system." 26. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the pleadings are the foundation of litigation but experience reveals that sufficient attention is not paid to the pleadings and documents by the judicial officers before dealing with the case. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the parties to investigate and satisfy themselves as to the correctness and authenticity of the matter pleaded. 27. The pleadings must set forth sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward a false or exaggerated claim or defence. The pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility. If false averments, evasive denials or false denials are introduced, then the court must carefully look into it while deciding a case and insist that those who approach the court must approach it with clean hands. 28. It was imperative that the Judges must have complete grip of the facts before they start dealing with the case. That would avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of the cases. 29. Ensuring discovery and production of documents and a proper admission/denial is imperative for deciding civil cases in a proper perspective. In relevant cases, the courts should encourage interrogatories to be administered." 40. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this court is of considered view that the petitioner has utterly failed to persuade this court to interfere with the impugned orders dated 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012. In relevant cases, the courts should encourage interrogatories to be administered." 40. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this court is of considered view that the petitioner has utterly failed to persuade this court to interfere with the impugned orders dated 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012. [Orders of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, constituted as per provisions contained in Rule 7A of the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Reservation Rules, 1992 (as amended upto May 2007) dated 30.07.2012 and 31.07.2012]. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit; accordingly, dismissed. All the interim orders stand vacated. _____________