P.C. :---Heard Mr. Lambat, the learned Counsel for petitioner.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that by a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents be directed to include the community "Dhobi" in the list of Scheduled Castes. It is further prayed by the petitioner that it be held and declared that denial of inclusion of the community Dhobi in the list of Scheduled Castes amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and thus, ultra vires the Constitution.

3. At the outset, it may be stated that the Court by declaration cannot exclude or include the caste in the Constitution Scheduled Caste Order, 1950 and S.C. S.T. Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 nor it is open to the Court to issue directions for addition or substitution of a particular caste in the Constitution Scheduled Caste Order, 1950 or the S.C. and S.T. Order (Amendment) Act, 1976. It is not the domain of the Court to examine and hold that a particular caste should be declared Scheduled Caste. Whether the community 'Dhobi' should be included and/or deserves to be included in the Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra on the grounds raised or reasons stated in the writ petition lies in the exclusive domain of the President or for the Parliament to amend the law. In (Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh)1, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1557, the Apex Court has held that in specifying castes, races or tribes, the President has been expressly authorised to limit the notification to parts of or groups within the castes, races or tribes, and that must mean that after examining the educational and social backwardness of a caste, race or tribe, the President may welcome to the conclusion that not the whole caste, race or tribe but parts of or groups within them should be specified. Similarly, the President can specify castes, races or tribes or parts thereof in relation to parts of the State where he is satisfied that the examination of the special and educational backwardness of the race, caste or tribe justifies such specification.

4. In (Nityanand Sharma another v. State of Bihar others)2, J.T. 1996(2) S.C. 117, the Apex Court held as under:---

"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 tribe 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, the Court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from the substitute or declare synonyms to be of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such caste or tribe."

5. Similarly, in (Pankaj Kumar Saha v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Islampur others)3, J.T. 1996(3) S.C. 200, the Apex Court in para 6 observed as under:---

"It is now settled law that though evidence may be admissible to the limited extent of finding out whether a caste which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Tribe was in fact included in the Presidential notification as amended under 1976 Act, the Court is devoid of power to include or exclude from or substitute or declare synonyms to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The courts would only look into the notification issued by the President to see whether the name finds place in the notification. Saha casts is expressly excluded from Sunri, a Scheduled Caste notified in the notification issued by the President in relation to the State of West Be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document