2026:JHHC:25723 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5077 of 2026 1. Ramashray Singh, aged about 75 years, Son of Baburam Singh, Resident of I.M.- 567 Rangamati, P.O.- Sindri, P.S.- Baliyapur, Dist.- Dhanbad. 2. Shiblal Ray, aged about 56 years, S/o late Ranglal Ray, R/o Vill- Gopalpir, P.O.- Guhiyajori P.S.- Jamtara, Gopalpur, Jamtara, Jharkhand- 815351 3. Shukhdev Ray, aged about 55 years, S/o Saryau Ray, Kangoi, P.O. & P.S.-Mihijam, Dist- Jamtara, Jharkhand- 815354.…………… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Rajyabhasha), Got. Of Jharkhand, Project Building Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. The Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Social Justice, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S.- Rajendra Prasad Road, Dist.- New Delhi, P.O. & P.S.-Rajendra Prasad Road, Dist.- New Delhi. 4. The Director, Jharkhand Janjatiya Kalyan Sodh, Sansthan (Trible Research Institute), P.O. & P.S.- Morabadi, Dist.- Ranchi ………… Respondents ……. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Suman Roy, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Sankalp, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Ms. Shreya Shukla, A.C to ASGI. …...... 03/19.08.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: – i. For issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the part portion of report submitted by the Kriti Vikram dated 07.01.2013 (Annexure-10) in which he has not recommended the Ghatwar/Ghatwar community within the Schedule Tribe (shortly mentioned as S.T.) community ii. For issuance of writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondent authorities to treat the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community as a S.T. community as earlier they were availing the all facilities of S.T. as per the list of S.T. made in the Year 1913 and also in the Year 1938 iii. For issuance of writ of mandamus directing the concern respondent to enter the name of the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community was in the list of S.T. but by mistake their names have not been entered into the list made in the year 1952 as it also appears from the report of Surendra 2026:JHHC:25723 2 Prasad singh who is the Deputy Director of Trible Research Institute, Morhabadi, Ranchi hence the present writ application. iv. For issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-store the status of Ghatwar/Ghatwal community as per the list of 1913 and 1938 and also direct the respondents to provide all facilities like earlier. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community has been deprived of Scheduled Tribe facilities, resulting in difficulties, particularly in the matter of employment and other benefits available to Scheduled Tribes. The Ghatwar/Ghatwal community was included amongst the aboriginal/S.T. communities in the lists prepared in 1913 and 1938, and that the community had accordingly been enjoying the benefits available to S.T. communities. According to the petitioners, the name of the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community was subsequently not included in the S.T. list prepared in 1952 due to an inadvertent mistake/omission. In support, reliance has been placed upon the report of Dr. Surendra Prasad Singh, then Deputy Director, Tribal Research Institute, Ranchi, stated to have noticed the said omission. The petitioners further rely upon a letter/report of Mokhtar Singh, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, wherein, according to them, the historical status of the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community in the lists of 1913, 1938 and the subsequent records was considered. The State Government had, according to the petitioners, itself considered the issue and had made recommendations to the Tribal Research Institute for examining the similarity of the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community with the other Scheduled Tribe communities and for considering its inclusion in the S.T. category. The issue had also led to representations and agitations by members of the Ghatwar community. An agitation was held on 05.03.2012 at Ranchi, seeking restoration of the community's S.T. status and consequential benefits. Prior to the present proceeding, W.P.(PIL) No. 3550 of 2011 had been filed concerning substantially the same grievance. During those proceedings, the Government stated that the Jharkhand Tribal Welfare Research Institute had reconsidered the issue and had recommended that the Ghatwal caste could be included in the Scheduled Caste category but could not be included in the Scheduled Tribe category. The said earlier PIL was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2013, with liberty to challenge the action of the State in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. The petitioners challenge the Kriti Vikram report dated 07.01.2013, alleging that the report was incorrect, motivated and contrary to the historical material concerning the community. 2026:JHHC:25723 3 3. The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the historical records conclusively demonstrate that the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community was treated as an aboriginal/S.T. community in 1913 and 1938, and its subsequent omission from the 1952 list was only an inadvertent mistake. It is further submitted that the reports and correspondence of the Tribal Research Institute and Government authorities support the petitioners' claim and establish that the issue required proper reconsideration. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the Kriti Vikram report dated 07.01.2013 is contrary to the earlier historical records and the material available on record and is therefore liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in denying the community the status and benefits which, according to the petitioners, it had historically enjoyed. The counsel for the petitioners accordingly seeks a direction upon the respondents to restore/recognize the S.T. status of the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community and extend all consequential benefits. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the mere presence of the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community in historical lists of 1913 and 1938 does not by itself confer present constitutional status as a Scheduled Tribe. The counsel for the respondents further relies upon the subsequent consideration by the Tribal Welfare Research Institute, which, as recorded in the earlier proceedings, had recommended that the Ghatwal caste could be considered as a Scheduled Caste but not as a Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that the issue of inclusion or exclusion of a community from the Scheduled Tribe list is governed by the constitutional mechanism, and the same cannot be altered merely by an order of the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. He submits that a State Government is entitled to initiate appropriate proposals for modification the Presidential Orders in cases where it is satisfied that modifications are necessary and, if after appropriate enquiry, the authorities are satisfied that a modification is required, an amendment could be undertaken as provided by the Constitution. It is therefore contended that the petitioners cannot seek an issuance of mandamus directing the authorities to declare the community as a Scheduled Tribe, particularly when the matter has already been examined by the competent authorities. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record, I find that the relief as sought by the petitioners is issuance of mandamus to the respondents to recognize the Ghatwar/Ghatwal community as a Scheduled Tribe and extend consequential 2026:JHHC:25723 4 benefits. This prayer undisputedly, fall under the provisions of Article 342 of the Constitution. It outlines the procedure for declaring and modifying the list of Scheduled Tribes. The primary purpose of Article 342 is to provide a clear, structured, and legally secure mechanism for identifying Scheduled Tribes so they can receive Constitutional protections, benefits, and affirmative action. Article 342 of the Constitution of India is extracted as under: 342. Scheduled Tribes.—(1) The President [may with respect to any State [or Union territory], and where it is a State [* * *], after consultation with the Governor [* * *] thereof,] by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State [or Union territory, as the case may be]. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. 6. From the above it is clear that the President of India holds the initial power to specify the original list of Scheduled Tribes for a State after consulting its Governor. However, any subsequent amendment, whether adding or removing a tribe, can only be done by Parliament. 7. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshan Samithi & Anr. V. State of Kerala & Anr. (1994) SCC 1 359 has held that any amendment to the Presidential Orders could only be by legislation. The Court cannot assume jurisdiction and order an enquiry to determine whether the terms of the Presidential Order included a particular community or not. A State Government is entitled to initiate appropriate proposals for modification in cases where it is satisfied that modifications are necessary and, if after appropriate enquiry, the authorities are satisfied that a modification is required, an amendment can be undertaken, as provided by the Constitution. Paragraph Nos.17 & 18 of the judgment reads as under: “17. We may usefully draw attention to the judgment of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura'. This judgment considered the Constitution Bench judgments in B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa2 and Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh' and certain other judgments. It held that the two Constitution Bench judgments indicated that any amendment to the Presidential Orders could only be by legislation. The Court could not assume jurisdiction and order an enquiry to determine whether the terms of the Presidential Order 2026:JHHC:25723 5 included a particular community. A State Government was entitled to initiate appropriate proposals for modification in cases where it was satisfied that modifications were necessary and, if after appropriate enquiry, the authorities were satisfied that a modification was required, an amendment could be undertaken as provided by the Constitution. 18. 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 let 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 Article 341, is valid.” 8. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dasarathi Meher, (2018) 18 SCC 176 held that Court cannot modify Presidential List issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution notifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or notification issued by Parliament or consider evidence in that regard. However, Court has to ensure that no caste or tribe which is intended by President or Parliament to be included in Presidential Order is excluded. Paragraph No.14 of the judgment is extracted below: “14. It is thus obvious that the power of the Court is very limited and the Court cannot modify, alter, add to or subtract from the Presidential Order or the notification issued by Parliament. At the same time, the Court has to ensure that the order is read in such a manner that no caste or tribe, which is intended by the President or by Parliament to be included, is actually excluded.” 9. In the light of what has been held above and the provisions of Article 342 of the constitution and the judgments referred to above, I find that no no mandamus can be issued in this case to include Ghatwar/Ghatwal in the Presidential Order, as Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 19th August, 2026 Anu/-Cp2. AFR. Uploaded on:28/08/2026