Binod Baraik vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2437 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Binod Baraik vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 February, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P. (C) No. 415 of 2023
                              ---------

Binod Baraik, aged about 20 years, son of Chandra Mohan Baraik, resident of village-Perengchawli, P.O. Jamudag, P.S. Sonahatu, District-Ranchi. ....Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building. Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi;

2. The Joint Secretary, Anusuchit Janjati, Anusuchit Jati, Aalp Sankhyak Evam Picchra Varg, Kalyan Vibhag, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi;

3. Caste Scrutiny Committee through its Chairman, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi;

4. Commissioner, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi;

5. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.- Kutchery, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi;

6. District Welfare Officer, Ranchi, P.O.- Kutchery, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi;

7. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bundu, P.O.+P.S. Bundu, District- Ranchi;

8. Block Development Officer, Sonahatu, P.O. Sonahatu, P.S. Sonahatu, District-Ranchi;

9. Circle Officer, Sonahatu, P.O.+P.S. Sonahatu, District-Ranchi.

....Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Om Prakash, Adv.

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III

---------

C.A.V. ON: 05.12.2024 PRONOUNCED ON:06/02/2025

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs;

(i) To quash letter contained in memo no. 87(ii) dated 04.02.2022 (Annexure-1) issued by Circle officer, Sonahatu, District- Ranchi (respondent no 9) whereby and whereunder, the petitioner is denied Schedule Tribe Caste certificate of "Chik Baraik", on the ground that in the Record of Rights (Revisional Khatiyan), the caste of the petitioner is shown as "Baraik" in column of caste whereas, the petitioner is claiming Caste Certificate of "Chik Baraik" and under the circumstances, it was not possible to issue the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate of "Chik Baraik".

(ii) Further, for a direction upon the concerned respondent to issue Schedule Tribe Caste certificate of "Chik Baraik", so that he may be able to appear in government services including services of police in future.

(iii) Further, for direction upon the concerned respondents to take necessary action against the Circle Officer, Sonahatu and Respondent No. 2 for not exercising the powers vested in them and by not complying with the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court contained in W.P.C No. 1688/2022.

(iv) Further for a direction to declare the conduct of Respondent No. 2 amounts to contempt of the order passed by this Court.

(iv) Further for quashing the order contained in memo no. 1426 dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Member, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Ranchi as being wholly arbitrary and contrary to the finding of Gram Sabha and further for condemning the arbitrariness of the respondents passing orders on matter of granting caste certificate of Schedule tribe of 'Chik Baraik' in colourable exercise of the constitutional power ignoring the government order and verdicts of the Hon'ble Court.

3. The brief facts of this case are that earlier a writ application has been preferred by the petitioner bearing W.P.(C) No. 1688 of 2022 which was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application before the respondent no.3 along with all supporting documents and directed the respondent no.3 to provide due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on receipt of his application and after making an enquiry take an informed decision in accordance with law.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 13.06.2022 before the respondent no. 3, requesting for issuance of Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate as he belonged to the Caste of "Chik Baraik". When no order was passed by the State Caste Scrutiny Committee then the instant writ application was filed and during pendency of this writ application an order contained in Memo No. 1426 dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Joint Secretary-cum- Member Secretary, Caste Scrutiny Committee, the application of the petitioner for grant of Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate of "Chik Baraik" was rejected. Hence, this writ application.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Division Bench of Patna High Court has already held vide its order dated 16.11.1987, passed in CWJC No. 1638 of 1987(R), that "Baraik" are really "Chik Baraik". He further submits that the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi vide letter dated 05.09.1986 has held that all the people of the caste of Baraik are really "Chik Baraik", and that the custom of these people are identical to the custom of "Aadiwasi Community" and the petitioner's father namely, Chandra Mohan Baraik has been issued Caste Certificate of Chik Baraik by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi vide Certificate dated 30.09.1992.

He further submits that the relatives of the petitioner, namely, Ashutosh Raj Baraik and Suresh Baraik have been issued Caste Certificate of "Chik Baraik" by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bundu and Block Development Officer, Sonahatu dated 19.08.2016 and 30.11.2016, respectively and the Mukhiya (Pramukh) of the petitioner's village has duly certified vide letter dated 09.03.2022, that the petitioner's occupation, living style, custom etc. are akin to the community of Aadiwasi.

He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 22.02.2019, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 629/2019, involving same and similar issue, the petitioner therein, namely, Shradha Neha Subarno was issued Caste certificate of "Chik Baraik" by the order Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 11.12.2018. Relying upon the aforesaid argument Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that order passed by circle officer as well as order passed by Joint Secretary - cum -Member Secretary, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Ranchi may be set aside and concerned respondent may be directed to issue Schedule Tribe Caste certificate of "Chik Baraik" to the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that initially vide order dated 04.02.2022 the Circle Officer, Sonahatu had declined to issue Caste Certificate of Schedule Tribe to the petitioner on the ground that in Record of Rights the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as 'Baraik' which is not Schedule Tribe. Further, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing W.P.C No 1688/2022 and vide order dated 07.06.2022 this Court had given direction, to the Caste Scrutiny Committee Jharkhand, to decide representation of the petitioner by passing informed decision in accordance with law, after making enquiry and after giving opportunity to the petitioner.

However, after receipt of the application, vide order dated 06.01.2023 it was decided that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction in the matter of grant of fresh certificate and therefore the matter was referred to the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand for its decision. Thereafter vide letter no. 813 dated 13.03.2023, the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms & Rajhbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand clarified that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is the appropriate authority to take decision in this matter.

6. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.C. No. 415/2023 for issuance of Caste Certificate for Schedule Tribe along with other prayers and during pendency of the case, a report from the Deputy Commissioner was called for with regard to way of living, clothing and marriage and the same was taken into consideration in the meeting of Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 22.06.2023. The report of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was based on the proceeding of Aam Sabha which was held in presence of the Panchayat Sevak.

He further submits that the villagers in the Aam Sabha disclosed that the way of living and the tradition of the petitioner is like tribals, however, father of the petitioner was claiming himself to be Baraik and therefore his claim for Caste Certificate of Chik Baraik is not tenable. It was also pointed out that the forefathers of the petitioner have sold their land to general caste and according to C.N.T Act the Chik Baraik's obtain permission from the D.C.L.R before selling their land u/s 46 of CNT Act and on the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report the Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected the application for issuance of Caste Certificate vide its order dated 22.06.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed amended writ application challenging the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 22.06.2023 along with other prayers.

He further submits that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has made an enquiry and took a decision. He lastly submits that in the meeting dated 22.06.2023 the case of the petitioner was considered in light of the order of this Court and appropriate decision has been taken in the meeting held on 22.06.2023 after following due procedure of law and appropriate order rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been passed vide memo no. 1426 dated 23.06.2023, as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein it transpires that the Circle Officer, Sonahatu vide order dated 04.02.2022 declined to issue Caste Certificate of Schedule Tribe to the petitioner on the ground that in Record of Rights the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as 'Baraik' which is not a Schedule Tribe. Subsequently the petitioner challenged the said order in the earlier writ application being W.P.C. No.1688 of 2022 which was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file application before Respondent no.3 who shall decide representation of the. When no order was passed by the State Caste Scrutiny Committee within the prescribed time then the instant writ application was filed.

It further appears that during pendency of the case, a report from the Deputy Commissioner was called for, with regard to the way of living, clothing and marriage and the same was taken into consideration in the meeting of Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 22.06.2023 and the report of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was based on the proceeding of Aam Sabha which was held in presence of the Panchayat Sevak and villagers who disclosed that the way of living and the tradition of the petitioner is like tribals, however, father of the petitioner was claiming himself to be Baraik.

It was further pointed out in the Aam Sabha that the forefathers of the petitioner have sold their land like general caste; though according to C.N.T Act, the Chik Baraik's obtain permission from the D.C.L.R before selling their land u/s 46 of CNT Act and on the basis of enquiry report the Caste Scrutiny Committee has rejected the application for issuance of caste certificate for Schedule Tribe vide order dated 23.06.2023 and this ground of the rejection order has not been controverted in the writ application.

Thus, the only issue to be decided is as to whether a person belonging to "Baraik" can be given caste certificate of "Chick Baraik" which comes under Scheduled tribe?

8. For this issue it is profitable to quote judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind & ors1 wherein at para 36 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :

"36. In the light of what is stated above, the following positions emerge:

1. It is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it.

3. A notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made by Parliament. In other words, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under clause (1) of Article 342 only by Parliament by law and by no other authority.

4. It is not open to 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 under clause (1) of Article 342.

5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar [(1970) 2 SCC 825 : (1971) 1 SCR 804] and Dina v. Narain Singh [38 ELR 212 :

(1968) 8 DEC 329] did not lay down law correctly in stating that the inquiry was permissible and the evidence was admissible within the limitations indicated for the

(2001) 1 SCC 4 purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to be. As stated in Position (1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, in the matter."

9. In view of the aforesaid judgment it is crystal clear that it is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it and it is not open to 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 under clause (1) of Article 342.

10. In view of the aforesaid finding no relief can be granted to the petitioner as such, this writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A. if any stands closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:06 /02 /2025 Amardeep/-

AFR/NAFR