IMPORTANT POINT
Lohars are not Scheduled Tribes. They are Blacksmiths belonging to other Backward Classes. Any contrary view is erroneous.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 136, Clauses (24), (25) of Article 366 and Articles 341, 342 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 (as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976)-Power of the Court to declare a particular tribe to be a Scheduled Tribe under-Lohar Community-Whether Scheduled Tribe or are blacksmiths i.e. other Backward Classes-Discrepancy in Hindi version and English version-Whether Court can give declaration of the social status as a Tribe or declare Lohars as Scheduled Tribes in the Act and the schedule of the Act ? (No) (Para 17)-Whether Lohars can be considered by this Court as synonyms of Loharas or Lohras ? (No) (Para 22)
       Held : It is for the Parliament to amend the law and the Schedule and include in and exclude from the Schedule, a tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community for the State, District or region and its declaration is conclusive. The Court has no power to declare synonyms as equivalent to the Tribes specified in the Order or include in or substitute any caste/tribe etc. It would thus be clear that for the purpose of the Constitution, "Scheduled Tribes" defined under Article 366(25) as substituted under the Act, and the Second Schedule thereunder are conclusive. Though evidence may be admissible to a limited extent of finding out whether the community which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the concerned Schedule, Court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare synonyms to be of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such caste or tribe. (Para 17)
       That Lohars are Other Backward Class. They are not Scheduled Tribes and the Court cannot give any declaration that Lohars are equivalent to Loharas or Lohras or that they are entitled to the same status. Any contrary view taken by any Bench/Benches of Bihar High Court, is erroneous. It would appear that execpt some stray cases, there is consistent view of that Court that Lohars are not Scheduled Tribes. They are Blacksmiths. We approve the said view laying down the correct law. (Para 22)
       Cases referred :
        1. Shambhu Nath v. State of Bihar (C.A. 4631 of 1990) Dt. 15-9-90 (SC)
        2. SLP @ CWJC No. 1034 of 1991 Dt. 21.9.92 (DBHC)
        3. CWJC No.3390/92 Dt. 20.9.93 (DBHC)
        4. Bhaiyalal v. Hari Kishan Singh, (1965) 2 SCR 877
        5. B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, (1965) 1 SCR 316
        6. Dina v. Narayan Singh, (1968) 38 ELR 212.
        7. Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura & Ors., (1990) Supp. SCC 220.
        8. Kumari Madhuri Patel & Ors. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 241
        9. Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University & Ors., JT 1996(1) SC 57.

JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. Short but an important question of constitutional law of the power of the Court to declare a particular tribe to be Scheduled Tribe under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment Act), 1976 (for short, the Act ) is the primary question.

3. The appellants, Assistant Teachers in the service of the State of Bihar belonging to Lohar caste, claimed the status as Scheduled Tribe under the Act and the order and sought promotion on that basis in the quota reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. When the request was not acceded to, the appellants had filed CWJC No.10593/92. The High Court by impugned order dated August 12,1993, dismissed the same.

4. Appellants case is founded on two-fold basis, firstly, Lohar community was included in the Schedule under the Act as

reflected in the Hindi version of the order and that thereby they are entitled to be recognised as Scheduled Tribes. Secondly, it is contended that when similar claim was relied on by one Shambhu Nath and was rejected by CAT, this Court in Shambhu Nath v. State of Bihar1 had held that Lohar community is a Scheduled Tribe under the Act. This was followed in another SLP @ CWJC No. 1034 of 1991 dated September 21, 19922. The Division Bench of the High Court in the above writ petition held Lohar community as Scheduled Tribe. This was upheld by this Court. In the latter case also it had concluded that Lohar is a Scheduled Tribe community and that, therefore, it is entitled to the same status. In yet another writ petition CWJC No. 3390/92 by order dated September 20, 19933, another Division Bench of that High Court also held that Lohar belongs to Scheduled Tribes. It is contended that the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, therefore, is wrong in law. The notification in Hindi version must be enforced as their constitutional right is grossly violated.

5. When the matter had come up on Monday, the 15th January, 1996 alongwith SLP (C) Nos. 23681-783 of 1995 and another one, the counsel stated that the other case was not pressed and thus was dismissed. In the above SLP No. 1569 of 1994, since notice was issued by one of us (Pattanaik, J.) who was a member of the High Court Bench, as the then Chief Justice of that High Court, the counsel for the respondent sought for posting of the matter before appropriate Bench and thus the matter was posted before a Bench of which Pattanaik, J. was not a member. At the request of parties this case was posted before the Bench of three Judges. Thus the matter has come up before us. When the case was called, the counsel sought permission for withdrawing the S.L.P. and when it was refused the counsel argued the case. Shri Dwivedi, the learned counsel, contended, firstly, that when there is a conflict of decisions between two co-ordinate Division Benches of the High Court, the Division Bench, in this case, should have referred the cases to a larger Bench and that, therefore, the decision of the High Court was bad in law. That controversy may be relevant in that court but as far as this Court is concerned, the case has to be dealt with on merits. He then contended that Lohars are Scheduled Tribes as recognised by other Division Benches of the High Court and that was approved by this Court in Shambhu Nath s case and another case. Therefore, Lohars now stand recognised as Scheduled Tribes. The Division Bench of the High Court in this case, therefore, was not right in holding that they are not Scheduled Tribes. He also contended that when the Hindi version of the Schedule mentions Lohars as Scheduled Tribes, they are entitled to the declaration from the Court and a mandamus should have been issued to the authorities to consider their status as Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of promotion as Head Masters.

6. Shri B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the State, resisted the contention. He contended that there is a consistent view of the State Hig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 256

1996(2) Supreme 167SUPREME COURT OF INDIAK. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria andS.B. Majmudar, JJ.Nityanand Sharma and Anr. -AppellantsversusState of Bihar & Ors. -RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 2688 of 1996Decided on 2-2-1996Counsels for the Parties :For the Appellant : Shri DwivediFor the State : B.B.Singh

IMPORTANT POINTLohars are not Scheduled Tribes. They are Blacksmiths belonging to other Backward Classes. Any contrary view is erroneous.

IMPORTANT POINT
Lohars are not Scheduled Tribes. They are Blacksmiths belonging to other Backward Classes. Any contrary view is erroneous.