JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her caste certificate was issued vide serial no.507 dated 07.09.1993 where the petitioner was shown to belong to Scheduled Tribe. After the formation of Jharkhand, a notice was published in the newspaper by the Circle Officer, Ghatshila, who is respondent no.3 herein that for renewal of caste certificate representation is to be made before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghatshila, who is respondent no.4 herein. It is further submitted that her representation was cancelled for the reason that originally she belong to Mahato and after marriage with Bablu Murmu, a caste certificate was issued in her name in the year 1993 showing her member of Scheduled Tribe. 3. Aggrieved by the action of respondents, she filed an application before the Circle Officer under R.T.I. where she was informed that serial no.507 dated 07.09.1993 was issued wrongly showing her a member of Scheduled Tribe (Santhal) which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that in view of Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in the case of Sunita Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 493 as well as order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.3596 of 2018 (Sunil Kumar Paswan Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others). The Hon’ble Apex Court at Para 5 held as under:- “There cannot be any dispute that the cast is determined by birth and the cast cannot be changed by marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste. Undoubtedly, the appellant was born in “Agarwal” family, which falls in general category and not in Scheduled Caste. Merely because her husband is belonging to a Scheduled Caste category, the appellant should not have been issued with a caste certificate showing her caste as Scheduled Caste. In that regard, the orders of the authorities as well as the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted”. 5. The matter has already been settled, therefore, respondent-authority has rightly passed the order. 6. In that regard, the orders of the authorities as well as the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted”. 5. The matter has already been settled, therefore, respondent-authority has rightly passed the order. 6. Considering the above submission of the parties and on perusal of judgment relied by the respondents, it manifest that the caste cannot be changed by marriage and in the instant writ petition, the petitioner born in the family of Mahato and after marriage with Bablu Murmu, a caste certificate showing her Scheduled Tribe was issued in the year 1993 which was cancelled by the respondent authority after creation of Jharkhand. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no error committed by the respondent-authority. 7. Resultantly, instant writ petition is dismissed.