ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the caste certificates issued on 13.12.1989 and 17.5.1993 in favour of the respondent no. 6 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as the same was issued without following the due procedure of rules and regulations. The petitioner further prayed for quashing the notification no. 1006/2000 Khand 4Ka 4125 dated 26.7.2001 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar whereby the respondent no. 6 has been appointed to the post of Deputy Collector against the vacancy reserved for the members of Scheduled Tribe. Further prayer been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner to appoint him to the post of Deputy Collector against the reserved post for the members of Scheduled Tribe in connection with 42nd Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe. The respondent no. 6 is an offspring of late A.P. Bakshi, a non-tribal father Kayasth by caste and Shanti Minz a tribal mother., Both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 appeared in 42nd Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna (in short "BPSC") under the Scheduled Tribe category. The candidates, who were recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission, have been appointed by the Government of Bihar vide notification no. 7714 dated 30.9.2000 in which the name of the petitioner did not find place. However, the list in which the name of the respondent no. 6 found place, it was mentioned that the appointment letter would be issued after verification of the caste certificate. The petitioner is claiming that when he came to know that the respondent no. 6 belongs to "Kayasth" (forward) caste and has obtained the caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe by false assertion, he filed a representation before the BPSC, D.C. Ranchi and National Commission of SC/ST, New Delhi by praying for cancellation of the appointment of respondent no. 6 and in his place, the case of the petitioner for appointment may be considered but of no consequence, which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. 4. 6 and in his place, the case of the petitioner for appointment may be considered but of no consequence, which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. 4. Despite the notices issued to the petitioner through the registry of the Court, the petitioner did not appear in the present writ petition either through himself or through another counsel and as such, vide order dated 22.3.2017, Mrs. Aparajita Bhardwaj, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case to assist the Court. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the caste certificates of the petitioner vide memo no. 3951/W dated 13.12.1989 and Memo No. 5/716/93 dated 17.5.1993 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition) are in contravention of the circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 21.5.1977 whereby all the State Governments were directed that the caste status of any offspring of inter caste marriage shall be issued after due verification of the fact that the child has been accepted as Scheduled Tribe by the Scheduled Tribe community and treated him/her as member of their own community. It is further submitted that the caste certificates of the petitioner dated 13.12.1989 and 17.5.1993 have not been issued in the proforma prescribed by the Central Government. The learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Smt. Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University reported in (1996)3 SCC 545 and a judgment of Patna High Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kumari Abha reported in (1999)1 BLJR 307 and submits that if a person, who does not belong to Scheduled Tribe category, transplants himself into any tribe in terms with the order contained in the Circular No. 106 dated 3.3.1979, he will be deemed to be a transplanted tribal and he/she cannot become a member of Scheduled Tribe and will not be entitled to the benefits of reservations under Article 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that this Court vide order dated 19.4.2001 passed in CWJC No. 582 of 2001 directed the State Government to issue the appointment letter to the respondent no. 6 and only thereafter the appointment letter was issued to the respondent no. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that this Court vide order dated 19.4.2001 passed in CWJC No. 582 of 2001 directed the State Government to issue the appointment letter to the respondent no. 6 and only thereafter the appointment letter was issued to the respondent no. 6 with a direction that he will produce the caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe in the prescribed proforma by 15.8.2001. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 6 produced the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi in the prescribed proforma vide Memo no. 4468 dated 30.7.2001 within the stipulated time and only then his appointment was confirmed. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be appointed on the post of Deputy Collector unless his name is recommended by the BPSC for appointment. It is further submitted that as per the Circular NO.106 dated 3.3.1989, the offspring of a nonmember of tribal married to a tribal woman will be treated as Scheduled Tribe and will get all the benefits of the Scheduled Tribe candidate if the tribal society accept him/her as member of the tribe and on that basis, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi issued the Caste certificate to the respondent no. 6 although the same was not in prescribed proforma. It is further submitted that the certificate issued by the Young Men's Christian Association vide No. 509/92 dated 22.10.1902 in favour of Mrs. Shanti Bakshi (Minz) states that she and her children maintained the tribal identity and followed the tribal traditions. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6 submits that the father of the respondent no. 6 was "Kayasth" by caste and he married a Tribal lady. It is further submitted that after the marriage, his father was never accepted by his other family members. The respondent no. 6 and his family members had no connection with the native place of his father and have also not got any share in the ancestral property of his father. He always lived with his mother and has suffered the same deprivation, indignities, humilities and handicaps as of his mother and as such he is legally entitled to the benefits of the Scheduled Tribe. It is further submitted that the respondent no. He always lived with his mother and has suffered the same deprivation, indignities, humilities and handicaps as of his mother and as such he is legally entitled to the benefits of the Scheduled Tribe. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 6 has already submitted a caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe in the prescribed proforma before the respondent-State and only thereafter, his appointment was confirmed. It is also submitted that earlier the respondent no. 6 had filed a writ petition before Ranchi Bench of Patna Court being CWJC No. 3367 of 1992(R) and in the said writ petition vide order dated 23.2.1993, a direction was given to the State Government to issue caste certificate in favour of the respondent no. 6. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-BPSC submits that the Commission has enquired about the caste of the respondent no. 6 and other two candidates from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) vide Commission's letter no. 2848 dated 3.3.2000 and in response thereto, the respondent no. 2 vide his letter no. 1094(ii) dated 26.4.2000 informed that the caste certificate of the respondent no. 6 has been issued after due verification. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It appears that earlier the present writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this court vide order dated 26.11.2009 whereby the caste certificate of the respondent no. 6 dated 13.12.1989 and 17.5.1993 was quashed by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anjan Kumar vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2006)3 SCC 257 [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC)186] and also the decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this court rendered in the case of Tribal Medical Association, Jharkhand vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2007(4) JCR 84 (Jhr.) [: 2007(3) JLJR 440 ], however his appointment in reserved category was not disturbed. The respondent no. 6 filed review petition being Civil Review No. 32 of 2010 for review of the order dated 26.11.2009, which was allowed vide order dated 14.9.2016 relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2012)3 SCC 400 [: 2012(1) JLJR (SC)391] and the present writ petition was restored. 10. 10. The petitioner has challenged the caste certificate of the respondent no. 6 on the ground that his caste certificate has been issued in contravention of the direction of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 21.5.1977 without verifying the fact as to whether he has been accepted by the tribal community and treated him as tribal or not. On the other hand, the respondent no. 6 has asserted that after the marriage of his father and mother, the relatives of his father deserted his parents and thereafter they lived as tribals and were also accepted as such by the tribal community. 11. In the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs. State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2012)3 SCC 400 [: 2012(1) JLJR (SC)391], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 54 and 55 held as follows:- "54. In view of the analysis of the earlier decisions and the discussion made above, the legal position that seems to emerge is that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the determination of the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the facts adduced in each case. The determination of caste of a person born of an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal cannot be determined in complete disregard of attending facts of the case. 55. In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-ribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a• marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Additionally, that he was always treated a member of the community to which her mother belonged not only by that community but by people outside the community as well." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that the caste of an offspring of inter-caste marriage must be decided by the attending circumstances. Although a child has the caste of his father and this presumption is high when the father is non-tribal and the mother is tribal but this presumption is rebuttable and the child may lead sufficient evidence to show that he/she has been brought up by his/her mother and has suffered the same deprivation, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the tribal community to which his/her mother belonged. It is also necessary that the members of the tribal community also treated him/her as part and parcel of the said community. Thus, merely because the father of the offspring is non-tribal, he/she cannot be denied the caste certificate of a Tribal, if his/her mother is a Tribal and it is proved by evidence that he/she has been brought up in the Tribal Community and has been accepted as a Tribal by the members of the said community. 13. Moreover, a certificate issued by Young Men's Christian Association dated 22.10.1992 has also been brought on record vide Annexure-A of counter affidavit dated 3.12.2003 filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 wherein it has been certified that the children of Mrs. Shanti Bakshi (Minz) (mother of the respondent no. 6) has maintained the tribal identity and has followed the tribal traditions. The petitioner has not brought on record any material to suggest that the respondent no. 6 was not brought up in the tribal community. It is not the stand of the petitioner that an offspring of a non-tribal father and a tribal mother is not at all entitled to the caste certificate of a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has given much stress to the argument that the enquiry and investigation which is condition precedent for granting caste certificate has not been followed by the State. The petitioner has given much stress to the argument that the enquiry and investigation which is condition precedent for granting caste certificate has not been followed by the State. However, the said contention of the petitioner has been denied by the State respondent by stating that the caste certificate of the respondent no. 6 has been issued after due verification of the fact that he has been brought up in the tribal community. Earlier also, a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3367 of 1992(R) was filed by the respondent no. 6 against the denial of caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe as he did not agree to change his title/surname from Bakshi to Oraon and Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 23.2.1993 observing that from the report, it appeared that the tribal community had accepted the petitioner and his family member as tribals. The order dated 23.2.1993 remained unchallenged and the same attained finality. Though the caste certificates of the respondent no. 6 dated 13.12.1989 and 17.5.1993 were not issued in the prescribed proforma, yet subsequently, the Caste Certificate dated 30.7.2001 was issued in the prescribed proforma by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the appointment of the respondent no. 6 should be quashed on the ground 'of infirmity in the caste certificate, has no leg to stand. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the issuance of caste certificates dated 13.12.1989 and 17.5.1993 in favour of the respondent no. 6 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 15. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.