JUDGMENT S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure F dated 02.12.2008 passed by the 1st respondent-deputy commissioner and the impugned order at Annexure G dated 16.06.2011 passed by the 4th respondent-appellate authority and for other relief s. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: Petitioner claims that he belongs to Meda community which is a scheduled tribe as notified in Entry No.37 of Part VI of The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (Annexure-K) issued under Article 342(1) of the Constitution ofindia. In order to substantiate his contention, petitioner has produced his caste certificate at Annexure B, schoolleaving certificate at Annexure C, caste certificate of his sister at Annexure D and schoolleaving certificate of his father at Annexure E. Petitioner has also produced the report of the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes at Annexure H dated 28-11-2008 and the Notification at Annexure J dated 5-6-2008 issued by the state government recommending inclusion/insertion of Medara as a synonym and equivalent to Meda community in the State of Karnataka. So also, petitioner has produced as Annexure L, copy of the central government gazette notification dated 31.05.2012 containing The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2012 to the Constitution(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 whereby in Entry No.37 of Part VI relating to State of Karnataka, the word Medara is inserted after the words Meda in the said entry. Pursuant thereto, the State Government has also issued a notification dated 03.07.2012 at Annexure M by inserting Medara after Meda . As per this notification, the state government has clearly declared and clarified that all the benefits granted and given to Meda would be applicable and available to Medara also. Upon the retirement of his father as section supervisor in the office of respondent No.3, petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground vide appointment order at Annexure A dated 22.09.1997. Pursuant to petitioner s request to the respondent No.3 to enter his name in the service records as belonging to a Scheduled Tribe based upon the aforesaid documents, the respondent No.3 referred the matter to the 1st respondent-caste verification committee for verification. Pursuant to petitioner s request to the respondent No.3 to enter his name in the service records as belonging to a Scheduled Tribe based upon the aforesaid documents, the respondent No.3 referred the matter to the 1st respondent-caste verification committee for verification. It is contended that without verifying the relevant records and the notification, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order at Annexure F holding that the petitioner does not belong to a scheduled tribe and that the caste certificate issued in his favour was not a valid certificate on the erroneous ground that the petitioner s father is a Medara and not Meda and that since the word, Medara does not find a place in Entry No.37, the petitioner did not belong to a scheduled tribe. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure F, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.4-appellate authority under Section 4(d)(2) of the Karnataka SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990(for short, the Act ). By impugned order at Annexure G dated 16.06.2011, respondent No.4-appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by 1s t respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned orders at Annexures-F and G passed by the respondents No.1 and 4 respectively, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. 4. The following points arise for consideration in this petition: i) Whether a clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendment to an Act is prospective or retrospective? ii) What is the scope, ambit and amplitude of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution ofindia? iii) Whether a clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendment by a Law of the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) or 342(2) of the Constitution ofindia to the original constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Presidential Order of the year 1950 is prospective or retrospective? iv) Whether The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2012 (Annexure L) to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 whereby in Entry No.37 of Part VI relating to State of Karnataka, the word Medara is inserted after the words Meda in the very same Entry No.37 is prospective or retrospective? Point (i) 5. iv) Whether The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2012 (Annexure L) to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 whereby in Entry No.37 of Part VI relating to State of Karnataka, the word Medara is inserted after the words Meda in the very same Entry No.37 is prospective or retrospective? Point (i) 5. The first question that arises for consideration is with regard to prospective or retrospective operation of an Act or an amendment to an Act. The legal position with regard to an Act or amendment thereto being prospective or retrospective is now well settled. It is a cardinal principle of construction or interpretation that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the rule in generalis applicable only where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. 6. There are however Acts/Amendments which are merely clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature. A declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. A declaratory Act means to declare the law or declare that which has always been the law, and there having been doubts which have arisen, the Parliament declares what the law is and enacts that it shall continue what it then is. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the interpretation of statutes. 7. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and therefore, if the principal Act was existing law when the constitution came into force, the amending Act will also be the part of the existing law. A clarificatory provision is retrospective in operation as its function is to supply an omission or explain a previously existing statute. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and therefore, if the principal Act was existing law when the constitution came into force, the amending Act will also be the part of the existing law. A clarificatory provision is retrospective in operation as its function is to supply an omission or explain a previously existing statute. It is deemed to come into effect when the previous enactment was passed. If a statute is crative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended. 8. In Crawford s Statutory Construction, at Page 107 paragraph 74 reads as follows: 74. Declaratory Statutes:- Generally speaking, declaratory statutes can be divided into two clauses: (1) those declaratory of the common law and (2) those declaring the meaning of an existing statute. Obviously, those declaratory of the common law should be construed according to the common law. Those of the second class are to be construed as intended to lay down a rule for future cases and to act retrospectively. They closely resemble interpretation clauses and their paramount purpose is to remove doubt as to the meaning of the existing law, or to correct a construction considered erroneous by the legislature. 9. In the case of State Bank ofindia v. V. Ramakrishnan, (2018) 17 SCC 394 , the Hon ble Apex Court observed and held that the presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective. In the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Prasad Verma, (2017) 5 SCC 665 , it is observed and held that any legislation or instrument having force of law, if clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature and purport, will have retrospective operation especially in the absence of any indication to the contrary as to retrospectivity either in parent Act or Rules or notifications involved. In the case of Union ofindia v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd, (2009) 12 SCC 209 , it is observed and held that whether a subordinate legislation or a parliamentary statute would be held to be clarificatory or declaratory would depend upon the nature thereof as also the object it seeks to achieve. In the case of Union ofindia v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd, (2009) 12 SCC 209 , it is observed and held that whether a subordinate legislation or a parliamentary statute would be held to be clarificatory or declaratory would depend upon the nature thereof as also the object it seeks to achieve. In the case of T.N. Electricity Board v. Status Spg. Mills Ltd, (2008) 7 SCC 353 , it is observed and held that a clarificatory order can be given retrospective effect as it can throw light on substantive provision by principle of contemporanea expositio. 10. In the case of Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1 , it is observed that the presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is to explain an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect. Where a Statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute or to 'explain' a former statute, the subsequent statute has relation back to the time when the prior Act was passed. The rule against retrospectivity is inapplicable to such legislations as are explanatory and declaratory in nature. 11. In the light of the aforesaid well settled principles, I am of the considered opinion that a clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendment to an Act or a statutory provision will have retrospective effect and will operate retrospectively and such an amendment to an Act or a statutory provision would relate back to the date of the original enactment. Point (i) is answered accordingly. Point (ii) 12. This aspect relates to the scope, ambit and amplitude of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution ofindia. The said Constitutional provisions read as under: 341. Point (i) is answered accordingly. Point (ii) 12. This aspect relates to the scope, ambit and amplitude of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution ofindia. The said Constitutional provisions read as under: 341. Scheduled Castes (1) 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 noti fication, 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 (2) 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 342. Scheduled Tribes (1) 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 noti fication, 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 Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes 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 13. While Article 341 deals with scheduled castes, Article 342 deals with scheduled tribes. Articles 341(1) and 342(1) empower the President to issue a public notification specifying and notifying those 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 of Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. Articles 341(1) and 342(1) empower the President to issue a public notification specifying and notifying those 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 of Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. Articles 341(2) and 342(2) enjoin that once such a Presidential Notification is issued under Articles 341(1) and 342(1) notifying a list of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, any inclusion or exclusion thereto of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe from the said list shall be done only by a law made by the Parliament. Articles 341(2) and 342(2) also contemplate that except by way of a law by the Parliament modifying the Presidential Notification issued under Articles 341(1) and 341(2), the said Presidential Notifications can not be varied by another subsequent notification. In other words, once a Presidential Notification is issued under Articles 341(1) of 342(1), it can be varied only by a Law of the Parliament and the said Notification can not be varied, modified, altered, amended or tinkered around by anything or anyone including a subsequent notification, either by the Central Government or State Government. As a corollary, in the absence of a law by the Parliament, any central or state notification issued subsequent to issuance of a Presidential Notification under Articles 341(1) or 341(2) would clearly be illegal, invalid, non-est, inoperative and void-ab-initio. 14. In this context, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Milind and others, (2001) 1 SCC 4 held as under: 11. By virtue of powers vested under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution ofindia, the President is empowered to issue public noti fication for the first time specifying the castes, races or tribes or part of or groups within castes, races, or tribes which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Casts or Schedules Tribes in relation to a State or Union Territory, as the case may be. The language and terms of Articles 341 and 342 are identical. What is said in relation to Article 341 mutatis mutandis applies to Article 342. The language and terms of Articles 341 and 342 are identical. What is said in relation to Article 341 mutatis mutandis applies to Article 342. The laudable object of the said Articles is to provide additional protection to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes having regard to social and educational backwardness from which they have been suffering since a considerable length of time. The words `castes' or `tribes' in the expression `Scheduled Castes' and `Scheduled Tribes' are not used in the ordinary sense of the terms but are used in the sense of the definitions contained in Article 366(24) and 366(25). In this view, a caste is a Scheduled Caste or a tribe is a Scheduled Tribe only if they are included in the President's Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 for the purpose of the Constitution. Exercising the powers vested in him, the President has issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Subsequently, some Orders were issued under the said Articles in relation to Union Territories and other States and there have been certain amendments in relation to Orders issued, by Amendment Acts passed by the Parliament. 12. Plain language and clear terms of these Articles show (1) the President under Clause (1) of the said Articles may with respect to any State or Union Territory and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor, by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within the castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory as the case may be; (2) Under Clause (2) of the said Articles, a notification issued under Clause (1) cannot be varied by any subsequent notification except by law made by Parliament. In other words, Parliament alone is competent by law to include in or exclude a caste/tribe from the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in noti fications issued under Clause (1) of the said Articles. In including castes and tribes in Presidential Orders, the President is authorized to limit the notification to parts or groups within the caste or tribe depending on the educational and social backwardness. In including castes and tribes in Presidential Orders, the President is authorized to limit the notification to parts or groups within the caste or tribe depending on the educational and social backwardness. It is permissible that only parts or groups within them could be specified and further to specify castes or tribes thereofin relation to parts of the State and not to the entire State on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so having regard to social and educational backwardness. States had opportunity to present their views through Governors when consulted by the President in relation to castes or tribes, parts or groups within them either in relation to entire State or parts of State. It appears that the object of Clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 was to keep away disputes touching whether a caste/ tribe is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or not for the purpose of the Constitution. Whether a particular caste or a tribe is Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be within the meaning of the entries contained in the Presidential Orders issued under clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 is to be determined looking to them as they are. Clause (2) of the said Articles does not permit any one to seek modification of the said orders by leading evidence that the caste / tribe (A) alone is mentioned in the Order but caste / tribe (B) is also a part of caste / tribe (A) and as such caste / tribe (B) should be deemed to be a scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe as the case may be. It is only the Parliament that is competent to amend the Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. As can be seen from the Entries in the Schedules pertaining to each State whenever one caste / tribe has another name it is so mentioned in the brackets after it in the Schedules. In this view it serves no purpose to look at gazetteers or glossaries for establishing that a particular caste/tribe is a Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of Constitution, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such in the Presidential Orders. Orders once issued under clause (1) of the said Articles, cannot be varied by subsequent order or notification even by the President except by law made by Parliament. Orders once issued under clause (1) of the said Articles, cannot be varied by subsequent order or notification even by the President except by law made by Parliament. Hence it is not possible to say that State Governments or any other authority or courts or tribunals are vested with any power to modify or vary said Orders. If that be so, no enquiry is permissible and no evidence can be let in for establishing that a particular caste or part or group within tribes or tribe is included in Presidential Order if they are not expressly included in the Orders. Since any exercise or attempt to amend the Presidential Order except as provided in clause (2) of Articles 341 & 342 would be futile, holding any enquiry or letting in any evidence in that regard is neither permissible nor useful . 15. Thus it is clear that States have no power to amend Presidential Orders. Consequently a party in power or the Government of the day in a State is relieved from the pressure or burden of tinkering with the Presidential Orders either to gain popularity or secure votes. Number of persons in order to gain advantage in securing admissions in educationalinstitutions and employment in State Services have been claiming as belonging to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes depriving genuine and needy persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes covered by the Presidential Orders, defeating and frustrating to a large extent the very object of protective discrimination given to such people based on their educational and social backwardness. Courts cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the Entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 particularly so when in clause (2) of the said Article, it is expressly stated that said orders cannot be amended or varied except by law made by Parliament. The power to include or exclude, amend or alter Presidential Order is expressly and exclusively conferred on and vested with the Parliament and that too by making a law in that regard. The power to include or exclude, amend or alter Presidential Order is expressly and exclusively conferred on and vested with the Parliament and that too by making a law in that regard. The President had the benefit of consulting States through Governors of States which had the means and machinery to find out and recommend as to whether a particular caste or tribe was to be included in the Presidential Order. If the said Orders are to be amended, it is the Parliament that is in a better position to know having means and machinery unlike courts as to why a particular caste or tribe is to be included or excluded by law to be made by Parliament. Allowing the State Governments or courts or other authorities or tribunals to hold enquiry as to whether a particular caste or tribe should be considered as one included in the Schedule of the Presidential Order, when it is not so specifically included, may lead to problems. In order to gain advantage of reservations for the purpose of Articles 15(4) or 16(4) several persons have been coming forward claiming to be covered by Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. This apart when no other authority other than the Parliament, that too by law alone can amend the Presidential Orders, neither the State Governments nor the courts nor tribunals nor any authority can assume jurisdiction to hold enquiry and take evidence to declare that a caste or a tribe or part of or a group within a caste or tribe is included in Presidential Orders in one Entry or the other although they are not expressly and specifically included. A court cannot alter or amend the said Presidential Orders for the very good reason that it has no power to do so within the meaning, content and scope of Articles 341 and 342. It is not possible to hold that either any enquiry is permissible or any evidence can be let in, in relation to a particular caste or tribe to say whether it is included within Presidential Orders when it is not so expressly included. 15. It is not possible to hold that either any enquiry is permissible or any evidence can be let in, in relation to a particular caste or tribe to say whether it is included within Presidential Orders when it is not so expressly included. 15. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Milind s case supra , I am of the considered opinion that once a Presidential Notification is issued under Articles 341(1) of 342(1) of the Constitution ofindia, it can be varied only by a Law of the Parliament and the said Notification can not be varied, modified, altered, amended or tinkered around by anything or anyone including a subsequent notification, either by the Central Government or State Government. As a corollary, in the absence of a law by the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) or 342(2), any central or state notification issued subsequent to a Presidential Notification being issued exercising powers under Articles 341(1) or 341(2) would clearly be illegal, invalid, non-est, inoperative and void-abinitio. Point (ii) is answered accordingly. Point (iii) 16. The next question that arises for consideration is whether a clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendment by a Law of the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) or 342(2) to a Presidential Order issued under Articles 341(1) or 342(1) of the Constitution ofindia is prospective or retrospective. In this context, it is relevant to state that originally, a Presidential Order under Article 341(1) dated 6-9-1950 with respect to any State or Union Territory was issued in the year 1950 by way of a public notification notifying, specifying and enumerating the various castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which were deemed to be scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be. Similarly, a Presidential Order under Article 342(1) with respect to any State or Union Territory dated 6-9-1950 was also issued in the year 1950 by way of a public notification notifying, specifying and enumerating the various tribes, tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which were deemed to be scheduled tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be. Subsequently, by several statutory amendments by the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) and 342(2), the aforesaid original notifications of the year 1950 were varied, altered, amended and modified and consequential notifications were issued by the Central and State governments. 17. The aforesaid amendments by the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) were of two types, viz., a) Firstly, by inserting and including additional synonymous and equivalent names of scheduled castes/tribes to the already existing names in any of the very same and already existing entries in the original Order; in this case, there was no addition, inclusion or insertion of a totally new entry or a new community as a scheduled caste/tribe in addition to existing entries or names; while the entry remained intact, new names synonymous and equivalent to the already existing names were added and inserted along with the already existing names to the very same entry; consequently, there was no increase or decrease in the total number of scheduled castes/tribes of the total number of entries contained in the original Presidential Order, but another description of a particular scheduled caste/tribe which was not so described originally was added or inserted by way of an amendment since it was synonymous and equivalent to the existing name. b) Secondly, a totally new community which was hitherto not a notified scheduled caste/tribe was added/inserted/included as a completely new entry in addition to the already existing entries. In other words, a community which was not notified as a scheduled caste/tribe under the original Presidential Order of the year 1950 was notified and specified as a scheduled caste/tribe for the first time pursuant to a statutory amendment by the Parliament under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) and the said newly inserted/included scheduled caste/tribe acquired the said status only after the amendment; consequently, there was an increase in total number of entries and total number of scheduled castes/tribes by addition, inclusion and insertion of a totally new scheduled caste/tribe. 18. 18. There is no gainsaying the fact that in so far as the aforesaid second category of scheduled castes/tribes which are totally and completely new scheduled castes/tribes which are added, inserted or included so as to increase the total number of scheduled castes/tribes are concerned, vested and substantive rights on account of being conferred with the status of scheduled castes/tribes for the first time were created in their favour by virtue of the aforesaid statutory amendment by the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) and 342(2). Applying the well settled principles with regard to statutory interpretation noticed by me while dealing with point (i) supra, the amendment in so far as the second category of cases are concerned is clearly prospective and not retrospective and the said amendments will not have retrospective operation and will not relate back to the date of the original Presidential Notification of the year 1950. 19. However, in so far as the first category of cases are concerned, if an amendment where under a particular name describing the scheduled caste/tribe which is synonymous and equivalent to the already existing entry is inserted /included/added in the very same entry after the names in the said entry without adding a new or separate entry and without increasing the total number of scheduled castes/tribes or the total number of entries, the said amendment is merely a clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendment which is retrospective in nature and operates retrospectively and relates back to the date of the original Presidential Notification of the year 1950. 20. This precise question came up for consideration before the Hon ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayanna vs Deputy Commissioner, (2013) 1 KarLJ 177 (FB) wherein after referring to all earlier decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, it was held as under: 6. Zile Singh -Vs- State of Haryana,2004 AIR SC 5842 no doubt concerns the possible retrospectivity of an amendment which inflicted a disqualification on any person having more than two children. The present debate is significantly and substantially dissimilar because retrospectivity is inherent in subsequent enumerations under Articles 341 and 342 since those selection are immutable or unalterable; all change therefore, is only clarificatory in content, because the endeavour of Parliament is to make the enumerations more detailed by mentioning sub-castes or the synonyms of the selected castes and tribes. The present debate is significantly and substantially dissimilar because retrospectivity is inherent in subsequent enumerations under Articles 341 and 342 since those selection are immutable or unalterable; all change therefore, is only clarificatory in content, because the endeavour of Parliament is to make the enumerations more detailed by mentioning sub-castes or the synonyms of the selected castes and tribes. The inclusion of new castes/tribes was intended by the framers of the Constitution to be impermissible, in order "to eliminate any kind of political factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so published by the President" as per the Constituent Assembly oration of Dr. Ambedkar, which stands accepted by the Apex Court at least twice, as in State of Maharashtra -Vs- Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 and Chinnaiah, (2005) 1 SCC 394 . Only elaboration or elucidation is constitutionally kosher; expansion, enlargement or elongation of the enumeration is not so. Our understanding reveals that the frontiers ofinclusion or exclusion of castes/tribes by Parliament under Article 341 (2) and 342 (2) have not been delineated by the Apex Court. It appears to us that logic directs that if the selection of castes and tribes is unalterable, retrospectivity will attach to every elaboration thereto. It also seems to us that this exercise is inevitable, inasmuch as the spelling of each caste varies from district to dialect, and translation from the vernacular to the English language invariably lacks precision and authenticity. Land grants to depressed classes or backward classes or Schedule Castes or Tribes, (it is our conclusion) whether prior or post the Constitution ofindia, must be treated identically and on parity. 21. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the original grantee's name was "Nayaka' ' in vernacular/Kannada. How this is to be spelt in English is the abiding question that arises even before us. If we translate it as 'Naikda' or 'Nayaka', then it was included in 1950 Presidential enumeration. If we are to translate it as 'Naika' or 'Nayak' then it is to be found in the subsequent amendment of 1991 only. The translation should have been made with greater care by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter by the Deputy Commissioner. We are certain that the Schedule Tribe is the same, attracting only the variant spelling in the translation. If we are to translate it as 'Naika' or 'Nayak' then it is to be found in the subsequent amendment of 1991 only. The translation should have been made with greater care by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter by the Deputy Commissioner. We are certain that the Schedule Tribe is the same, attracting only the variant spelling in the translation. Both the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have erroneously concluded that since "Nayaka'' (Naika or Nayak) was included as a Schedule Tribe only in 1991, the grantee did not fall within the purview of the PTCL Act and erroneously restored the land to the State. This error would not have manifested had the two authorities perceived the legal position that all entries in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 original or subsequent are only elucidatory and clarificatory in nature. To sum up, after careful cogitation we are of the conviction that the view expressed by the Division Bench in Krishnappa and Rangaiah has to be preferred. In these circumstances, assuming that "Nayaka'' was included as a Schedule Tribe in 1991, we shall nevertheless answer the Reference by stating that every inclusion would have retrospective effect and would therefore revert back to the Presidential Noti fication of 1950. 21. In view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Full Bench in Jayanna s case supra, I am of the considered opinion that any amendment to the Presidential Order of 1950 by a law of the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) or 342(2) whereby a particular name describing the scheduled caste/tribe which is synonymous and equivalent to the already existing entry is inserted/included/added in the very same entry after the existing names in the said entry without creating or adding a new or separate entry or tribe and without increasing the total number of scheduled castes/tribes or the total number of entries, the said amendment is merely a clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendment which is retrospective in nature and operates retrospectively and relates back to the date of the original Presidential Notification of the year 1950. Point (iii) is answered accordingly. Point (iv) 22. Point (iii) is answered accordingly. Point (iv) 22. The next question that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts of the instant case, The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2012 (Annexure L) to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 whereby in Entry No.37 of Part VI relating to State of Karnataka, the word Medara is included, added and inserted after the words Meda to the very same Entry No.37 is prospective or retrospective. In this context, a perusal of The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2012 at Annexure lindisputably indicates that it is a Law made by Parliament exercising powers under Article 342(2) of the Constitution ofindia. The said Amendment Act which received assent of President on 31-05-2012 and was published in Central Government Official Gazette on 31-05- 2012 reads as under: 1. This Act may be called Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2012. 2. In the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, in Part VI-Karnataka, in Entry No.37, after Meda , insert, Medara . 23. The aforesaid Amendment Act, 2012 clearly indicates that the name, Medara was inserted and included after the name, Meda in the very same pre-existing Entry No.37 of the Presidential Order, 1950 without either creating or adding a totally new entry or a new scheduled tribe. To put it differently, under the said Amendment Act, 2012 the name Medara was merely included, added and inserted in the very same pre-existing Entry No.37 consisting of a synonymous and equivalent name, Meda , without creating or adding a new or separate entry or tribe and without increasing the total number of scheduled castes/tribes or the total number of entries and consequently, the said Amendment Act, 2012 is merely a clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendment which is retrospective in nature and operates retrospectively and relates back to the date of the original Presidential Notification of the year 1950. As a natural corollary, it follows there from that the name, Medara is deemed to have been part and parcel of Entry No.37 along with Meda, Medari etc., in the Presidential Order, 1950 right from the date ofits issuance in 1950 and all persons described and known as Medara are also deemed to have been a scheduled tribe from 1950 itself with retrospective effect. In other words, in view of the fact that the Amendment Act, 2012 by inserting Medara to Entry No.37 of Part VI is merely a clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendment which is retrospective in nature and operates retrospectively and relates back to the date of the original Presidential Notification of the year 1950, the Medara community is retrospectively deemed to be a Scheduled Tribe with effect from the date ofissuance of the Presidential Order, 1950. Point (iv) is answered accordingly. 24. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, my findings and conclusions on the aforesaid points that arise for consideration can be summarized as hereunder: i) A clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory statutory amendment operates retrospectively and is retrospective in nature and any such amendment relates back to the date of the original enactment; ii) A Presidential Order and Notification issued under Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution ofindia can be varied, amended, altered or modified only by a Law by the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of Constitution ofindia; iii) A clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendment by a Law of the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) or 342(2) of the Constitution ofindia varying the original Presidential Order and Notification of the year 1950 issued under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution ofindia is retrospective in nature and any such amendment relates back to the date of the original Presidential Order and Notification of the year 1950; iv) The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2012 (Annexure L) to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Presidential Order, 1950 whereby in Entry No.37 of Part VI relating to State of Karnataka, the word Medara is inserted after the words Meda in the very same Entry No.37 is retrospective in nature and the said amendment relates back to the date of the original Presidential Order and Notification of the year 1950. 25. Coming to the facts of the facts of the case on hand, it is not in dispute that Petitioner and his father belong to Medara community. As held by me above, Medara community is clearly a Scheduled Tribe as notified, specified and enumerated in Entry No.37 of the Presidential Order, 1950 dated 06.09.1950 retrospectively with effect from the date ofissuance of the said Order in the year 1950. As held by me above, Medara community is clearly a Scheduled Tribe as notified, specified and enumerated in Entry No.37 of the Presidential Order, 1950 dated 06.09.1950 retrospectively with effect from the date ofissuance of the said Order in the year 1950. Further, vide Annexure M, Notification dated 3-7-2012 issued by the Government of Karnataka in pursuance of the Amendment Act, 2012, the State government has clearly stated that Medara was a notified scheduled tribe and all persons belonging to Medara community would be entitled to all benefits enjoyed by a scheduled tribe. Under these circumstances, respondents 1 and 4 clearly committed an error in coming to the conclusion that Petitioner being a Medara did not belong to a scheduled tribe while passing the impugned orders at Annexures F and G and consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. 26. It is brought to my notice that despite the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Jayanna s case supra , the State government is not implementing or giving effect to Amendment Acts by the Parliament exercising powers under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution ofindia in respect of other scheduled castes and tribes despite the said amendments being merely clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory or explanatory amendments which are retrospective in nature and operate retrospectively and relate back to the date of the original Presidential Notification of the year 1950. Under these circumstances, I deem it fit and proper to issue suitable directions to the State government in this regard. 27. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER ii. The Writ Petition is allowed. iii. The impugned orders at Annexure-F dated 02.12.2018 passed by the 1st respondent and Annexure-G dated 16.06.2011 passed by the 4th respondent are hereby quashed. iv. 27. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER ii. The Writ Petition is allowed. iii. The impugned orders at Annexure-F dated 02.12.2018 passed by the 1st respondent and Annexure-G dated 16.06.2011 passed by the 4th respondent are hereby quashed. iv. It is declared that by virtue of The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2012 at Annexure-L, the Medara community inserted in Entry No.37 of Part VI of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Presidential Order, 1950 dated 06-09-1950 is deemed to be a Scheduled Tribe retrospectively with effect from the said date of the said Presidential Order, 1950; v. Petitioner is declared to belong to the Scheduled Tribe, Medara for all purposes and he is entitled to all consequential benefits including his service/employment benefits under the Respondent No.3; consequently, Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to enter the name of the Petitioner as belonging to scheduled tribe in all his service records; vi. The Karnataka State Government is directed to implement and give effect to the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Jayanna vs Deputy Commissioner, (2013) 1 KarLJ 177 (FB) forthwith immediately in respect of all persons belonging to scheduled castes/scheduled tribes by issuing/passing such appropriate notifications, orders or directions; vi i. Copy of this Order is directed to be made available to the Office of the Learned Advocate General who is hereby directed to communicate the same to the State Government immediately for taking suitable follow-up action forthwith as directed above. Petition stands allowed subject to the aforesaid directions. In view of disposal of writ petition, all pending interlocutory applications stand dismissed.