The main legal point established in the judgment is that the classification of a caste under the Scheduled Tribe category must be supported by relevant legal provisions and previous judicial decisions.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter no. 6493 dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and the report prepared by the respondent no. 3-Director, Dr. Ram Dayal Munda Tribal Welfare Research Institute, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi attached with letter no. 381 dated 03.08.2018 (Annexure-9/1 to the writ petition), whereby the caste “Lohar” has been considered under Other Backward Caste (OBC) category, rather than Schedule Tribe. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to declare the caste “Lohar” under Schedule Tribe category in the light of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 [Act No. 108 of 1976 issued by Government of India] (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to ensure that the concerned authorities of the Government of Jharkhand forthwith issue caste certificates of “Scheduled Tribe” to the members of “Lohar” caste and provide the benefits of reservation in accordance with the reservation rules as also in the light of the Act, 1976 and Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 5-Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment through its Secretary, New Delhi to delete the name of “Lohar” caste from the Central list of Other Backward Caste relating to the State of Jharkhand, at Serial No. 48 of Page-4 in the Hindi version list and at Serial No. 48 of Page-18 in the English version list notified vide Gazette Notification No. 12015/13/2010-BC-II dated 08.12.2011 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 4-Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi to include the name of “Lohar” caste in the list of Scheduled Tribe category (online portal) relating to the State of Jharkhand in the light of the Act, 1976 and Article 342 of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that “Lohar” community is notified in the Act, 1976 under Entry No. 22 in the Hindi version of the Scheduled Tribe List relating to State of Bihar (Part 3) vide the Central Government Act No. 108 of 1976 dated 18.09.1976. It is further submitted that Hindi version of the Act, 1976 shall be deemed to be the authoritative text under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Official Language Act, 1963. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanoria Chemical and Industries and Another vs. State of U.P. (1992) 2 SCC 124, has considered the matter regarding any doubt or ambiguity or difference or conflict appearing on plain reading of the Hindi version words and the English version words of the legislation/Act and has held that the Hindi text is the correct/true version of the Act/legislation. The petitioners who belong to “Lohar” community made a detailed representation to the respondent authorities to implement and comply the relevant law as declared in the Act, 1976 as well as to include “Lohar” Community in the Scheduled Tribe, however, the said claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the respondent no. 2.

3. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, while producing a copy of a recent judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Rai and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 232, submits that the issue as to whether “Lohar” caste can be included in Schedule Tribe category is no more res-integra as in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that while Lohara/Lohra comes under Schedule Tribe “Lohar” does not.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. This Court finds that under Item No. 20 of