The Presidential Notification issued under Arts. 341 or 342 of the Constitution of India is final and conclusive in determining whether a particular person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

JUDGMENT :

H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - Both these writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment as the facts and the question of law involved therein are the same and similar, namely, as to whether the Court has to refer only to the Presidential Notification issued under Arts. 341 or 342 of the Constitution of India to determine as to whether any particular person belongs to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe notified therein or the Court can look into any other material of circumstances also to give the advantage to any other caste or tribe by reason of the party of functions or vocations followed by the members thereof

2. Although the question has come up for consideration before this Court as also the Supreme Court on several occasions and the same seems to have been fairly settled, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urgued that it is not possible for the Court to look beyond the Presidential Notification with reference to some of the observations here and there in some of those decisions,

3. Briefly stated, the facts are these:

Opposite party No 1 of the cases had filed applications before the Revenue Officer, Baripada, (opposite party No 2) u/s 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'} for restoration of their lands sold to the petitioner and others on the ground that as they were members of the Scheduled Caste, namely, Rajaka, the sales in question were hit by the provisions contained in Section 22 of the Act and have succeeded in getting the orders in their favour which have been separately annexed to these applications.

It may be stated that 'Rajaka' is not mentioned in the list appends., co the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 (for short Presidential Order') as a caste or tribe. This fact is not in dispute but the claim was made by opposite party No. 1 on the basis of entry No. 26, i. e., 'Dhoba', 'Dhobi' of the List and the certificate of the Additional Tahasildar Betnoti, to the effect that the nature of work performed by the members of the 'Rajaka' community was similar to that of 'Dhoba, Dhobi'. No evidence, however, was led in support of this fact. The Additional District Magistrate has observed in his order that:

"It is a known fact that there is no community called 'Rajaka' community which is different from 'Dhoba' community. 'Rajaka' is only a literary word for the common term 'Dhoba'......"

It was submitted that he had made these observations on the basis of the meaning of the word 'Rajaka' given in Purnachandra Ordia Bhashakosha (A lexicon of the Oriya language) which gives the following meanings to the word 'Rajaka' :.

"(i) Washerman,

(ii) A dyer, and

(iii) Name of a hybrid caste (born of a fisherman father and Tibara mother)".

Clause 2 of the Scheduled Castes Order reads, thus :

"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."

I have already said above that so far as the State of Orissa is concerned, the entry in item No. 26 of the List is 'Dhoba', 'Dhobi'.

Taking this view, the Revenue Authority came to the conclusion that opposite party No. 1 in both the cases were members of the Scheduled Caste and since no previous permission was obtained from the Revenue Officer by them for transferring their lands in favour of the petitioner and others, the sales were hit by the restriction contained in Section 22 of the Act and, therefore, the transfers were illegal. Accordingly, restoration of the lands in favour of the opposite party No. 1 has been ordered.

Although opposite party No. 1 had appeared through their counsel in this Court, when the cases were taken up for hearing, nobody appeared before us.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reference can be m