Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the caste 'Gingira' is synonym to 'Keuta', hence, a Schedule Caste, the fact which has been lost sight of by the learned authorities below and therefore, the impugned orders under Annexures-6 and 9 are liable to be interfered with and set aside with a declaration that 'Gingira' caste is a Schedule Caste. While advancing such an argument, Mr. Nayak refers to a decision of this Court in Krushna Chandra Bariki Vrs. State of Odisha and others 1991 (II) OLR 504 to contend that therein considering the occupation with the caste 'ChudaKuta', it was held that the same is synonymousto 'Dewar community, hence, the caste 'Keuta', 'Kaibarta' are to be held as Schedule Caste. It is further submitted that such a decision is in line of the judgment and principles discussed in Narayan Behera Vrs. State of Odisha 49 (1980) CLT 47.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Sahoo, learned CGC for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State would submit that the Court cannot declare any such caste as a Schedule Caste which has been pleaded for and therefore, the learned authorities below did not commit any error or illegality in passing the impugned orders under Annexures-6 and 9, so, therefore, the decision is not liable to be disturbed.

6. In course of hearing, Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State cited a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vrs. Milind and others (2001) 1 SCC 4and it is contended that the legal position has been summarized therein which is to the effect that it is not open to the State Governments or Courts or Tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued in terms of Article 342(1) of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that no such enquiry is permissible or any evidence can be let in to decide or declare that any such tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name mentioned in an entry even though it is not specifically described in Presidential Order, 1950. Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State and also Ms. Sahoo, learned CGC lastly submit that the above being the principle laid down, the petitioner cannot claim or seek a declaration as a Schedule Caste considering the caste 'Gingira' synonym to 'Keuta'.

8. Considering the above settled legal position and since no such enquiry is allowed or any such evidence could be permitted so as to take a decision as to particular caste whether a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe to hold that such caste synonymous to be one mentioned in the Presidential Order, the Court has to reach at a conclusion that the learned authorities below did not err in taking a decision that the petitioner not be a Schedule Caste. In order words, since the legal position enunciated in Milind (supra) specifically bars any such inclusion by an enquiry even by a Court or any such authority for a declaration of a caste synonymous the caste described in the Presidential Order, the irresistible conclusion would be that the impugned decision under Annexure-9 thereby confirming Annexure-6 does not suffer from any legal infirmity.