IMPORTANT POINTS
1. “Lohar” community is “Other Backward Class (OBC) and not a Scheduled Tribe.
2. From the conjoint reading of Article 348 of the Constitution of India and Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, English continues to remain the authoritative text in respect of the Acts of Parliament.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 342(a)—Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950—Tribe “Lohara” mentioned as a Scheduled Tribe for State of Bihar—Appellant belonging to “Lohar” community claimed to be a member of Scheduled Tribe—“Lohars” were treated as “Other Backward classes”—Point in issue stood concluded against appellant by judgment in Nityanand Sharma’s case—Prayer to refer judgment in Nityanand case to a larger Bench—Because of the ambiguity in Hindi translation of 1976 Scheduled Tribe Order, members of “Lohar” community claimed themselves to be member of Scheduled Tribe—Supreme Court in Nityanand’s case after noticing the ambiguity existing in Hindi translation of 1976 Scheduled Tribe Order held that whereas “Lohara” and “Lohra” belonged to “Scheduled Tribe”, the “Lohars” in State of Bihar, belonged to “Other Backward Classes” —Prayer to get judgment in Nityanand’s case re-opened and considered by larger Bench was rejected in Vinay Prasad’s case—No reason to take different view.
       Held : There is no dispute on the proposition that if the Presidential Notification does not contain any specific class or tribe or a part of, then 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. The Courts must read the lists of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes under Article 341 and 342 read with Article 366 ( 24) and (25) as they find them and accept their ordinary meaning. Neither the Government nor the judiciary can add or subtract to the List of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But, the Court would have the limited jurisdiction to the extent of finding out whether the Community which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the Schedule concerned. To that limited extent, the court would have the jurisdiction but, otherwise, the court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare synonyms to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such castes or tribes.(Para 16)
       In Nityanand’s case this Court examined in detail as to whether there were three casts/tribes by the nomenclature Lohra, Lohara and Lohar or whether Lohar and Lohara were one and the same thing and if Lohar and Lohara were two different castes/tribes then which one of them would qualify as a tribe or whether both will qualify as a tribe. This Court after detailed consideration came to the conclusion that the ambiguity was caused because of Hindi translation of the 1976 Scheduled Tribe Order. The Court was called upon to declare as to whether the Hindi translation was correct or the original English text was correct. For this limited purpose the Court looked at the Ethnographic Survey conducted in India by H.H. Risley. After taking into consideration the said survey, the Court observed that Lohar is a sub-caste of Barhai who works in iron. In Risley’s Ethnographic Glossary the Lohar Community has been dealt with in great detail. In the same Glossary Lohara and Lohra are mentioned as tribes of Chota Nagpur. The Court did not refer to or rely upon the text of Risley to include or exclude a caste in the Presidential Order or amend or alter the Presidential Order. Risley’s survey was examined to remove the ambiguity which had crept in because of the contradictory entries in English and Hindi versions of the Presidential Order.(Para 18)
       An attempt was made to get the judgment in Nityanand’s case re-opened and considered by the larger Bench in Vinay Prasad’s case (supra). Shri Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant in the instant case incidentally was the counsel in the said case as well. Submission similar to the one which has been made before us had been made in Vinay Prasad’s case (supra) case as well. The Division Bench rejected the said contention. We are in agreement with the view taken in the Vinay Prasad’s case (supra) as well.(Para 22)
       (ii) Constitution of India—Article 348—English to be authoritative text in respect of Acts of Parliament—Official Languages Act, 1963—Sections 3 and 5—English Continues to remain authoritative text in respect of Act of Parliament.

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.—This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No. 5483 of 2000 and Writ Petition Nos. 173 of 2002 and 488 of 2000 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.Point involved in all these cases being the same, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 5483 of 2000.

3. This appeal has been filed by a member of “Lohar” community from the State of Bihar. “Lohars” are being treated as Other Backward Classes whereas he claims to be a member of Scheduled Tribes under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order. The point in issues is concluded against the appellant by a judgment of this Court in Nityanand Sharma and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1996 (3) SCC 576. The appellant seeks to get the judgment in the case of Nityanand (supra) referred to a larger Bench by contending that the said judgment is wrong and needs reconsideration.

4. Prabhat Kumar Sharma, the appellant herein, was a candidate for the Civil Services Examinations held during the years 1991, 1992, 1993 & 1994. He claimed to belong to “Lohar” community, which according to him was a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar. While considering the candidature of the appellant and while verifying his claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar, the Union Public Service Commission prime facie came to the conclusion that the “Lohar” community was not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the State of Bihar issued by the Government of India. The Commission addressed a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to ascertain if “Lohar” community was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in Bihar. The Deputy Commissioner in his reply indicated that “Lohar” community in the Bihar was recognized as “Backward Class” only and not as ‘Schedule Tribe”. In the light of this, the appellant was asked by the Commission to clarify the latest position in respect of the community claim.

5. The appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 2600 of 1992 in the High Court of Patna at Ranchi for a direction to the State Government to issue him a caste certificate as ‘Scheduled Tribe’ on his being a member of “Lohar” community. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to issue a provisional caste certificate describing the appellant as “Lohar” belonging to the Scheduled Tribe with the stipulation that the same shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition pending in the High Court. The Bench issued an interim direction on 18.02.1993 directing the Commission to permit the appellant to appear in the examination provisionally as a member of the “Lohar” community as a ‘Scheduled Tribe’. As per interim directions issued by the High Court, the Commission treated the appellant along with 4 other candidates similarly placed as belonging to Scheduled Tribe provisionally, subject to proving their claim. The performance of these candidates including the appellant in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1994 was assessed on relaxed standards meant for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The result of the written part of the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1994 was declared by the Commission on 27.04.1995 and none of the five candidates including the appellant could qualify the written examination on the basis of their performance even as Scheduled Tribe candidates. The appellant had earlier failed to qualify the Civil Services (Main) Examination for the year 1993 even though he was treated as Scheduled Tribe candidate provisionally.

6. Writ Petition came up for final hearing in July, 1999. The Single Judge of the High Court in its judgment dated 5.7.1999 held that the question, as to whether “Lohar” was a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar stands concluded by a judgment of this Court in Nityanand’s case (supra) and accordingly held that “Lohar” community is “Other Backward Class” (OBC) and not a Scheduled Tribe.

7. The appellant being aggrieved filed letters patent appeal in the High Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 998

Cases Referred (2)