2025:JHHC:21254-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 170 of 2025 Binod Baraik, aged about 22 years, son of Chandra Mohan Baraik, resident of Village- Perengchawli, P.O. Jamudag, P.S.- Sonahatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand…… ……. … Appellant 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. and 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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the Resp./State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG --------- 04/Dated: 31.07.2025 1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner/appellant had filed a writ application for the following reliefs; 2025:JHHC:21254-DB 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. v. 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. 2025:JHHC:21254-DB 3) The petitioner had preferred an application before the respondent No. 3 requesting for issuance of the Scheduled Tribe certificate as he belongs to the caste of ‘Chik Baraik’, when no order was passed by the State Caste Scrutiny Committee, then the instant writ petition was filed and during the writ application, a memo no. 1426 dated 23rd June, 2023 was passed by the Joint Secretary-cum- Member Secretary, Caste Scrutiny Committee and, accordingly, the request made by the petitioner for grant of Scheduled Tribes caste certificate of ‘Chik Baraik’ was rejected. 4) The prayer made by the petitioner for grant of said certificate was opposed on the ground that in the record of rights, the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as ‘Chik Baraik’ which is not a ‘Scheduled Tribe’. 5) The learned writ Court after taking note of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind & ors, (2001) 1 SCC 4 and also going into the other factual aspects of the case, dismissed the writ petition constraining the writ petitioner/appellant to file the instant appeal 6) It is vehemently argued by Mr. Rajiva Sharma, learned senior counsel that there is no caste by the name of ‘Chik Baraik’, and therefore, the findings arrived at by the Caste Scrutiny Committee ignoring this fact, cannot be countenanced. 7) However, the moot question is regarding the scope of judicial review in such matters and the same has been clearly spelt out in para 36 of the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble 2025:JHHC:21254-DB Supreme Court in Milind case (supra), which is reproduced here 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 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.” 8) Notably, the arguments raised by the petitioner/appellant clearly fall within the prohibition as contained in sub para 2 of para 36, as it is the contentions of the petitioner that the caste ‘Chik Baraik’ should be considered as belonging to ‘Baraik’ caste which exercise by this Court 2025:JHHC:21254-DB is specifically prohibited and not available to this Court, as it has been clearly stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Scheduled Tribe order must be read as it is and it is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub--tribe or part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonyms to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order, if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. 9) The learned counsel would then rely upon the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Haripada Mahto v. State of Bihar 1988 BLT 258. Even this judgment is not of any avail to the petitioner/appellant as the earlier judgments of the Patna High Court and Bombay High Court which went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar [(1970) 2 SCC 825 : (1971) 1 SCR 804] and Dina Vithoba Naronwara v. Narain Singh [38 ELR 212 : (1968) 8 DEC 329] have been held to be not laying down the correct law, wherein it has been held that it was permissible for showing that an entry in the Presidential Order was not intended to be as what has been stated therein. It was specifically held that no inquiry, at all, is permissible and no evidence can be led in the matter as is evident from the observations contained in sub-para 5 of para 36 of the Milind case (supra). 10) In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) NAFR (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp-02