Karnataka High Court
Paduthota Ramachandra And Others Etc. vs Union Of India And Another Etc. on 14 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996KANT282, ILR1995KAR2712, 1995(5)KARLJ356
ORDER
M. L. Pendse, C. J.
1. An interesting question as to the ambit of Art. 341 of the Constitution of India and the powers of the State Government and the Central Government to identify equivalent or synonyms castes, races or tribes set out in the Presidential Order falls for determination in these appeals preferred to challenge the legality of order dated Nov. 12, 1990 delivered by learned single Judge in W.P. No. 8234 of 1983 filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The facts which gave rise to filing of this petition are not in dispute and are required to be briefly set out to appreciate the controversy in these two appeals.
2. Article 341(1) prescribes that the President may, in respect of a State, in consultation with the Governor, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the State. Article 366(24) defines that the expression "Scheduled Castes" means such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under Art. 341 to be Scheduled Castes. The President of India issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, in exercise of powers under Art. 341 and Part VIII of the schedule appended to that order relates to State of Karnataka. Item No. 3 of Part VIII relates to Kanara District and 'Kotegar' or 'Metri' castes residing in Kanara District are declared as 'Scheduled Caste'. The Parliament passed enactment known as 'The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976' and this legislation was passed under the provisions of Art. 341(2) of the Constitution. Art. 341(2) entitles the Parliament by law to include or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes issued by the President, any caste, race or tribe. The sub-article provides that save and except the legislation passed by the Parliament, a notification issued by the President under Art. 341(1) of the Constitution shall not be varied. The Amendment Act passed by the Parliament did not disturb the Presidential Order in regard to the declaration of Kotegar or Metri caste residing in Kanara District as Scheduled Caste.
3. On Nov. 29, 1977, the Government of Karnataka, Social Welfare and Labour Department issued a circular containing instructions regarding issue of caste certificates to memebrs of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. After setting out the modality of issuing certificates, the Circular sets out that the concerned officer should issue caste certificate to members of equivalent name in vogue and which are set out in the annexure to the Circular. The annexure to the Circular sets out equivalent names of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Item No. 5 sets out that 'Kote-Kshatriya, Kotegara, Koetegar' are the equivalent of 'Kotegar or Metri' residing in Kanara District which are declared as Scheduled Castes under the Presidential Order. In pursuance of the Circular, the authority issued caste certificates to members of Kote-Kshatriya, Kotegara and Kotegar residing in State of Karnataka and the holders of the caste certificates became entitled to the benefits conferred under Arts. 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. In exercise of powers under Arts. 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, the Government of Karnataka had issued orders from time to time to provide for special benefits for advancement of socially and educationally backward-classes in public employment and admission to Medical and Engineering colleges. On the strength of caste certificates, members of communities, which were treated as equivalents secured admission in educational institutions and in public employment.
The Government of India by letter dated Dec. 31, 1977 informed the Government of Karnataka that question of synonyms of certain Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is under consideration of the Central Government and the progress will be intimated to the State Government in due course. The letter, inter alia, recites that the action of the State Government in directing issuance of the caste certificates on the strength of affidavit/declaration was not proper and suitable instructions should be issued in that respect. The Government of Karnataka thereupon issued Circular dated April 20, 1978, withdrawing with immediate effect the original Circular dated Nov. 29, 1977, setting out the equivalents or synonyms of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The State Government was also desirous to take consequential action against the members of equivalent sub-caste, who have secured admissions to educational institutions and public employment. The action proposed by the State Government was to revoke the appointments and launch prosecutions against those who have secured caste certificates in pursuance of Circular dated Nov. 29, 1977. The threatened action of the State Government gave rise to filing of writ petition on behalf of association of the members belonging to Kotegar caste.
4. The petition sets out that Kotegar caste in very backward economically, socially and educationally. The petitioners then claimed that Kotegar caste bears various names like Kotegara, Koteyava, Rama Kshatri and Servegara. The petitioners relied upon book written by E. Thurston titled as 'Native Races of India -- Castes and Tribes of Southern India'. The petitioners also relied upon the report made by Commission appointed by the State Government and known as 'Karnataka Backward Classes Commission'. The petitioners claimed that the State Government appointed a Committee in June 1978 for suggesting the synonyms for certain Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the Committee submitted a report within one week advising the Government to issue a Government Order mentioning synonyms names for some of the castes and tribes. It is not in dispute that the synonyms names for 'Kotegar or Metri' were riot recommended. The State Government accepted the report in respect of some other castes and forwarded recommendation to the Central Government and the Central Government by letter dated Oct. 5, 1979 approved the recommendation of the Government of Karnataka. The petitioners claimed that as the action of the State Government in identifying the synonyms names for certain Schedueld Castes was approved by the Central Government, there is no rationale why synonyms names identified by the Government of Karnataka in respect of Kotegar or Metri should also not be approved and benefit given to the members of sub-caste who are found to be synonyms to Kotegar or Metri. The respondents to the petition were Government of India, the State of Karnataka and other office bearers of the State Government.
5. The learned single Judge by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the State Government was rather hasty in withdrawing the Circular dated Nov. 29, 1977 merely because the Government of India informed that the question of synonyms was under consideration. The learned Judge further held that there were no instructions from the Central Government to withdraw such circular and therefore the action of the State Government was faulty. The learned Judge observed in the order that the petitioners are also claiming that there are few denominations which would also be treated as synonyms of Scheduled Castes and as the matter is pending for consideration before the Central Government, there is no reason why the additional denominations should not be considered by the Central Government as synonyms for conferring the benefit. The learned Judge thereupon issued direction to the Government of India to consider the synonyms specifically mentioned in the Circular dated Nov. 29, 1977 and also the synonyms mentioned in the writ petition for being treated as equivalents to Kotegar or Metri, which were recognised as Scheduled Castes by Presidential Order. The learned Judge also struck down Circular dated April 20, 1978 withdrawing the earlier Circular dated Nov. 29, 1977. The decision of the learned Judge is under challenge at the behest of a group of persons residing in Dakshina Kaannada and interested in ameliorating, uplifting and protecting the rights and interests of the Scheduled Castes. The Government of Karnataka has also preferred appeal and both these appeals are disposed of by this judgment.
6. The principal contention advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in two appeals is that it is not open for the State Government to identify equivalents or synonyms castes, races or tribes for being treated as castes, races or tribes which are declared as Scheduled Castes under the Presidential Order issued under Art. 341(1) of the Constitution. It was contended that neither the State Government nor the Central Government has any authority to include any sub-castes, races or tribes or groups within the castes races or tribes for being considered for the purposes of Constitution to be scheduled castes, The power to include any group within castes, races or tribes is exclusively conferred on Parliament under Art. 341(2) and that power cannot be usurped by the State Government or the Central Government in the guise of determining synonyms or equivalents of the castes notified under the Presidential Order. It was submitted that the State Government could not have validly issued Circular dated Nov. 29, 1977 providing that Kote-Kshatriya and Kotegara in Karnataka State are equivalents of Kotegar or Metri in Kanara District and are entitled to be treated as Scheduled Castes. The action of the State Government in withdrawing the same, claims the counsel could not have been distrubed by the learned Judge in exercise of writ jurisdiction by examing whether these groups or sub-castes are equivalents of Kotegar or Metri. It was contended that the jurisdiction to include or exclude any group or sub-caste from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in the Presidential Order is exclusively with the Parliament and the State Government cannot take over that right and approval by the Central Government again cannot confer any authority in the State Government. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the action of the State Government in declaring the equivalents is not one of including the sub-castes or sub-tribes in the list, but merely identifying that Kote-Kshatriya is equivalent to Kotegar or Metri. It was submitted that though the authority to include in the list the sub-caste exclusively vests with the Parliament, the State Government is not debarred from ascertaining which sub-caste or sub-tribe is equivalent to the caste or tribe included in the Presidential Notification. The exercise undertaken by the State Government, it is claimed, was for conferring benefits upon those groups of sub-castes or sub-tribes which are socially and economically backward and when the act exercised found approval by the Central Government, then the action need not be faulted. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents, that it is open for the Court to record evidence to ascertain whether a sub-caste or sub-tribe is equivalent to the caste or tribe included in the Presidential. Order. In view of this rival submission, the question which falls for determination is whether it is open for the State Government to identify equivalent or synonyms sub-castes or sub-tribes for being treated as Scheduled Castes for the purpose of the Constitution.
7. Article 366(24) defines that expresion "Scheduled Castes" means such castes as are deemed under Art. 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purpose of the Constitution. Article 341(1) entitles the President of India to issue Notification specifying the castes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes and when the Notification is issued in respect of a State, after consultation with the Governor of the State, the power to include or exclude from the list any caste or tribe is conferred on the Parliament and the Parliament can undertake that exercise only by passing a legislation. A perusal of the provisions of Art. 341 makes it clear that it is not permissible to add or subtract any caste or tribes from the list of Scheduled Castes declared to be so by the Presidential Order except by legislation enacted by the Parliament. A plain reading of Art. 341 excludes authority of the State Government and the Central Government to interfere with the list published by the President of India. Mr. Havanur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, very fairly stated that it is not permissible for either the State Government or the Central Government to include or exclude any caste or tribe from the list published by the President, but submitted that it is open for the State Government to identify which sub-castes are equivalent to castes already included in the list. It was submitted that the list published by the President declares Kotegar or Metri of Kannara District in generic terms and it is open for the State Government, albeit with the approval of the Central Government to determine which are the species of the generic terms. We are afraid we cannot accede to the submission of the learned counsel. It is not open for the State Government or the Central Government under the guise of identifying synonyms or equivalents to include groups or sub-castes or sub-tribes in the list. The State Government cannot be permitted to usurp the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Parliament to include or exclude from the list the castes or tribes included in the Presidential order. In case the State Government is permitted to identify the synonyms or equivalents, then there is danger that the sub-castes or sub-tribes will be notified as equivalents to suit extraneous purposes or for extraneous consideration. In case the contention of the repondents that it is open for the State Government to identify synonyms sub-castes and include them in the list is accepted, then there is danger that the State Government may also exclude some of the castes or tribes included by claiming that they do not belong to the Scheduled Castes. The claim of respondents that it is open for the Courts to record evidence and to include some sub-castes in the list is also not accurate. The Courts cannot take-over the right conferred by the Constitution upon the President and the Parliament to declare any castes or tribes as Scheduled Castes. The expression used under Article that once the caste or tribe is included in the Presidential Order, then, such caste or tribe shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes, gives an indication that it is not open for the Courts or for the State Government or the Central Government to examine whether the President was justified in including such caste or tribe in the list. In our judgment, it is not open for the State Government to undertake the exercise of identifying equivalents or synonyms sub-castes or sub-tribes for inclusion in the list for conferring benefits. The Stale Government may undertake the exercise and forward the recommendation to [he Central Government for the purpose of approaching the Parliament to pass a legislation for including some sub-castes in the list, but it is not permissible to by-pass the Parliament and include some sub-castes in the list under the guise of identifying the equivalents.
8. The question as to whether the approval of the Central Government would validate the action of the State Government in identifying the synonyms and treating them as part of the Scheduled Castes declared by the President by Presidential Order need not be examined in the present case. It is not in dispute that a report of the Committee appointed by the State Government for submitting the synonyms names of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes did not recommend that Kote-Kshtriya is synonym for Kotegar or Metri and consequently the State Government did not forward the recommendation to the Central Government for giving approval to that synonym. It is difficult to accept the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that the approval of the Central Government to the recommendation made by the State Government would entitle the State Government to include the synonyms sub-castes or sub-tribes in the list published by the President. As mentioned hereinabove the power to include or exclude from the list is available only to the Parliament and that too by passing a legislation. It hardly requires to be stated that the Central Government cannot be equated with Parliament and the power of the Parliament cannot be conferred on the Executive. The approval cannot be equated to the legislation of the Parliament, and therefore it is not open for the State Government to take shield behind approval secured from the Central Government to secure legality to the action of identifying synonyms of the castes included in the list published by the President of India.
9. A reference is required to cases cited at the bar in support of the respective contentions. On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed on the decision in B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, . This decision is the first in order where the Supreme Court considered the ambit of Presidential Order issued under Art. 341 of the Constitution. An election held to Bangalore South (Scheduled Castes) constituency was challenged on the ground that a returned candidate was not a member of any of the Scheduled Castes mentioned in the Presidential Order. The returned candidate claimed that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste listed as 'Bhovi' in the Order. The challenge was on the ground that the returned candidate was a Voddar by caste and the Voddar was not a Scheduled Caste specified in the Order. The Election Tribunal held that caste mentioned as 'Bhovi' in the Presidential Order was a sub-caste among the Voddars and as the returned candidate did not belong to sub-caste of 'Bhovi', was not eligible for contesting the election. The appeal preferred to the High Court succeeded on the finding that the returned candidate being a 'Voddar' must be held to be a member of 'Bhovi' caste. The Supreme Court noticed that in the case of Mysore State, as it was prior to the reorganisation of 1956, there was no caste known as 'Bhovi'. It was further held that as the Presidential Order refers to the caste known as 'Bhovi' in the Mysore State, it must be accepted that there was some caste which the President intended to include. The Supreme Court further observed that when it was not disputed that there is no caste known as 'Bhovi' in the Mysore State, the only course open to the courts was to find out which caste was meant by 'Bhovi' and this could be determined by recording evidence. The Supreme Court then observed (at p. 1271 of AIR) :--
"It may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in the order by producing evidence to show (for example) that though caste A alone is mentioned in the order, caste 8 is also a part of caste A and, therefore, must be deemed to be included in caste A. It may also be accepted that wherever one caste has another name it has been mentioned in brackets after it in the order : *** Ordinarily, therefore, it would not have been open in the present case to give evidence that the Voddar caste was the same as the Bhovi caste specified in the Order, for Voddar caste is not mentioned in brackets after the Bhovi caste in the Order."
This decision is repeatedly referred to with approval in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and reference can usefully be made to the decision in Parasram v, Shivchand, . This was also an election dispute and the issue was whether a candidate claiming to be a Chamar by caste can be treated as Scheduled Caste under the Presidential Order. The Supreme Court referred to decision in B. Basavalingappa's case, , and also to the case in Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh, , with approval and observed :--
"These judgments are binding on us and we do n6t therefore think that it would be of any use to look into the gazetteers and the glossaries on the Punjab castes and tribes to which reference was made at the Bar to find out whether Mochi and Chamar in some parts of the State at least meant the same caste although there might be some difference in the professions followed by their members, the main difference being that Chamars skin dead animals which Mochis do not. However that may be, the question not being open to agitation by evidence and being one. the determination of which lies within the ex-elusive power of the President, it is not for us to examine it and come to a conclusion that if a person was in fact a Mochi, he could still claim to belong to the scheduled caste of Chamars and be allowed to contest an election on that basis."
Reliance was placed on behalf of the original petitioners on the decision in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar, , where the Supreme Court observed that whether a particular person was a member of the Scheduled Tribes so declared by the President under Art. 341 of the Constitution is essentially a question of law. This was also an election dispute and the question was whether Patars are Mandas and even if so, whether Patars can claim to be members of the Scheduled Castes when their names are not included in the Presidential Order. In the election petition ample evidence was lead to establish that Patars were treated as part of Mundas. The Supreme Court did not disturb the election of the returned candidate observing that the name by which a tribe or sub-tribe is known is not decisive and even if the tribe of a person is different from the name included in the Presidential Order, still it may be shown that the name included in the order is a general name applicable to sub-tribes. Relying on this decision it was contended that it is open for the original petitioners to establish by evidence that synonyms or equivalent recognised by the Government of Karnataka are realty species of generic term Kotegar or Metri, Reliance was placed also on two other decisions in Satish Chandra Choudhary v. State of Tripura, and the Revenue Officer v. Prafulla Kumar Rai, . In the first case the facts were that Laskars were treated in the State of Assam as Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently the State Government decided to treat the said community as not belonging to Scheduled Tribes and the action was challenged before the Court. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to continue to treat the community as Scheduled Tribes as the matter was pending before Parliamentary Committee and the decision was awaited. We are unable to appreciate as to how this decision will advance the case of the respondents. In the second case, the issue arose under Orissa Land Reforms Act which inter alia provided that a person belonging to Scheduled Tribes cannot make a valid transfer of lands in favour of a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, without prior permission in writing of the Revenue Officer. The issue arose as transfer was made by a member belonging to sub-caste Rajaka and which was not recognised as Scheduled Tribes in the Presidential Order. It was claimed that Rajaka is a literal synonym for the word Dhoba and therefore Rajaka is not different from the caste Dhoba which was included in the Presidential Order. The Supreme Court relying upon Purna Chandra Oriya Bhasa-kosh, which is a recognised authority, accepted the claim. The judgment of the Supreme Court did not examine the question as to whether it is open to recognise sub-caste not mentioned in the Presidential Order by holding that the sub-caste is synonym to the caste included in the Presidential Order. This decision also refers to the earlier decision in Basavalingappa's case .
10. In our judgment, the issue stands concluded in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Palghat Zilla Thandan Samudhya Samrakshna Samithi v. State of Kerala, (1954) 1 SCC 359. The question which arose for determination of the Supreme Court was the validity of the decision of State of Kerala not to treat members of Thandan community belonged to the erstwhile Malbar District as members of Scheduled Castes. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Art. 341 of the Constitution and the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and observed :
"These judgments leave no doubt that the Scheduled Castes order has to be applied as it stands and no enquiry can be held or evidence left in to determine whether or not some particular community falls within it or outside it. No action to modify the plain effect of the Scheduled Castes order, except as contemplated by Art. 341, is valid."
The Supreme Court then examined the decisions in Bhaiya Ram Munda and Srish Kumar Choudhary which were referred in support of the contention that evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended and observed that these decisions had accepted the principle laid down in the decision by the Constitution Bench in Bhaiya Lal's case . The Supreme Court then_ observed :--
" *** It is not for the State Government or for this Court to enquire into the correctness of what is stated in the report that has been made thereon or to utilise the report to, in effect, modify the Scheduled Castes order. It is open to the State Government, if it so deems proper, to forward the report to the appropriate authority to consider whether the Scheduled Castes order needs amendment by appropriate legislation. Until the Scheduled Castes order is amended, it must be obeyed as it reads *** "
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bhaiya Lal's case held that in order to determine whether or not a particular caste is a scheduled caste within the meaning of Art. 341, one has to look at the public notification issued by the President in that behalf. It was further observed (at pp. 1559-60 of AIR) :--
"In the present case, the notification refers to Chamar, Jatav or Mochi, and so in dealing with the question in dispute between the parties, the enquiry which the Election Tribunal can hold is whether or not the appellant is a Chamar, Jatav or Mochi. The plea that though the appellant is not a Chamar as such, he can claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belongs to the Dobar caste, which is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste, cannot be accepted. It appears to us that an enquiry of this kind would not be permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Art. 341."
These decisions, in our judgment, put an end to the controversy and the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that it is open for the Court to record evidence to ascertain whether Kote-Kshatriya forms part of Kote-gar or Metri as set out in the Presidential Order cannot be accepted. Indeed, in our judgment, the Court cannot by recording evidence conclude that a group of sub-caste or sub-tribe should be included in the list or should be excluded from the list and thereby appropriate the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution makers on the Parliament. It is now well settled that Constitutional provisions should be interpreted broadly and harmoniously, but interpretation should not be such which would make any of the provisions nugatory. In our judgment, it is not permissible for the State Government or the Central Government to include or exclude from the list any group or sub'-caste or sub-tribe by merely declaring that the object is to advance social and economic benefit to members of backward communities. Even though the object is extremely laudable that would not confer constitutional authority in the State Government or the Central Government to make addition to the list declared by the Presidential Order.
11. Mr. Holla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the respondents, referred to the decision in Meera Mohanlal Merchant v. State of Maharashtra, , but the decision of the learned single Judge of Bombay High Court is not relevant for the purpose of determining the controversy in the present case. Reliance placed on the decision in A. K. Thevan v. Union of India, of the Kerala High Court is not correct as the view of single Judge runs counter to the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. With respect we are unable to share the view taken by the learned single Judge that an entry in the Presidential Order relating to Scheduled Castes can be interpreted to understand its coverage and thereby it is permissible to cover the sub-castes which are not specifically referred to.
12. Marc Galanter in his Book on "Competing Equalities, Law and the Backward Classes in India" observed that the nomenclature of communal groups in India is equivalent and ambiguous, fluid and shifting. The lists of castes and tribes that make-up the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Orders make a valiant attempt to grapple with this by including some synonyms and specifying some other groups. The author observed that the existence of the lists acts to induce movement across the line into favoured categories by manipulation of equivocal nomenclature. The author then refers, to the decisions of the Supreme Court and concludes that every list sets out groups as well as sub-groups. The author also points out that in June 1965 a committee was appointed by the Government of India to advise on revision of the existing lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, under the Chairmanship of B. N. Lokur, the Law Secretary. The committee submitted the report pointing out that a lion share of the various benefits and preferences were appropriated by numerically larger and politically well organised communities. The committee recommended addition of certain castes and deletion of others. The report was received with angry resistance by members of Scheduld Castes and the Parliament agreed with the few inclusions but would not countenance any exclusion from the list. Subsequently a Joint-Parliamentary Committee was constituted to review the list, but even the report of the Joint-Parliamentary Committee was not accepted by the Parliament. These facts indicate that the issue of inclusion of sub-castes or sub-tribes on the ground of synonyms or exclusion of some sub-castes or sub-tribes in the list is extremely sensitive and controversial and the Parliament was reluctant to enact legislation as required under Article 341(2) of the Constitution. Viewed in this background it is obvious that the exercise which even the Parliament finds difficult cannot be carried out by either the State Government or the Central Government without any authority.
13. The learned single Judge by the impugned order has merely set out the facts leading to issuance of circular dated April 20, 1978 and proceeded to grant relief. The learned single Judge did not consider the question as to whether the State Government had any authority to issue the earlier circular dated November 29, 1977. The decision of the learned single Judge holding that the State Government should not have withdrawn the circular dated November 29, 1977 is clearly unsustainable in view of the fact that the State Government.did not have any jurisdiction to issue the earlier circular dated November 29, 1977, for including the equivalents in the list of Scheduled Castes notified by the President of India. The direction given by the learned single Judge to the Central Government to consider whether the other equivalents claimed by the respondents should be included in the list also cannot be sustained. In our judgment, the impugned order, is required to be set aside and the petition filed by the respondents must fail.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition would lead to serious consequences for the members of Kote-Kshatriyas and other sub-castes, who had secured caste certificates from the concerned authority in pursuance of circular dated November 29, 1977. The learned counsel sounded an apprehension that the State Government is likely to remove the members of the sub-castes, who had secured employment in the year 1977 or thereafter till the date of withdrawal of the circular. Jt was also contended that the State Government is threatening to prosecute those who have secured caste certificates in pursuance of the circular dated November 29, 1977. In our judgment, the State Government will not be well advised if any prosecution are launched against the members of the sub-castes for securing certificates in accordance with the circular issued by the State Government. The mere fact that subsequently the circular was withdrawn by the State Government cannot lead to the conclusion that the members, who have secured certificates, are guilty of any criminal offence demanding prosecution. In our judgment, the State Government should refrain from filing any prosecution against members of the sub-castes, who had secured caste certificates in pursuance of notification issued by the State Government. We are confident that the State Government will not order any prosecution against any members, who had secured caste certificates. As regards (he apprehension that the State Government would discontinue the members, who were given public employment on the basis of the caste certificates, we recommend to the State Government that such action should be deferred for a period of one year. Meanwhile the State Government should move the Central Government and recommend that necessary steps should be taken, if possible, to request the Parliament to pass appropriate legislation so as to include the names of those sub-castes or sub-tribes, which according to the State Government, are synonyms with the castes or tribes included in the list notified by the Presidential Order. In case the Parliament passes any such legislation, then the members of the sub-castes who had secured caste certificates and in consequence of which public employment, should not be disturbed. These observations would sufficiently safeguard the interests of the members of the respondent-Association who had secured caste certificates.
14. Accordingly both the appeals being W.A. No. 2722/91 and W.A. No. 851/94 are allowed and the impugned order dated November 12, 1990 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 8234/93 is set aside and the petition stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case; there will be no order as to costs.
15. Appeals allowed.