झारखÖड गजट

असाधारण अंक

झारखÖड सरकार ɮवारा Ĥकाͧशत

5 फाãगुन, 1946 (श०)

संÉ या – 107 राँची, सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025 (ई०)

मंǒğमंडल (Ǔनवा[चन) ͪवभाग

--------

अͬधसूचना

24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

संÉया-02/Ǔन0Û या0वा0-17-06/2020/03--Ǔनवा[चन अजȸ सं०-03/2020 मɅ Ǒदये गये उÍच

Ûयायालय, झारखÖ ड, राँची के तारȣख 24 अÈ टूबर, 2024 के आदेश से संबंͬधत भारत Ǔनवा[चन

आयोग कȧ अͬधसूचना संÉया-82/पूव[ अनु.-1/झार.-ͪव.स./(03/2020)/2025 Ǒदनांक-04 फरवरȣ, 2025

को एतदɮवारा सव[साधारण कȧ जानकारȣ हेतु Ĥकाͧशत कȧ जाती है ।

झारखÖड राÏयपाल के आदेश से,

के० रͪव कुमार,

मुÉय Ǔनवा[चन पदाͬधकारȣ-सह सͬचव ।

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

भारत Ǔनवा[चन आयोग

--------

अͬधसूचना

04 फरवरȣ, 2025/15 माघ, 1946 (शक)

सं0 82/पूव[ अनु.-1/झार.-ͪव.स./(03/2020)/2025--लोक ĤǓतǓनͬध×व अͬधǓनयम, 1951

(1951 का 43) कȧ धारा 106 (ख) के अनुसरण मɅ, भारत Ǔनवा[चन आयोग एतदɮवारा Ǔनवा[चन

अजȸ सं. 03/2020 मɅ Ǒदये गये उÍ च Û यायालय, झारखÖ ड, राँची के तारȣख 24 अÈ टूबर, 2024 के

आदेश को Ĥकाͧशत करता है ।

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Election Petition No. 03 of 2020

-----

Suresh Kumar Baitha, aged about 45 years, son of Late Puran Baitha, resident of Jagatpuram

(Behind Hot Lips), PO-Gandhi Nagar, PS-Gonda, District- Ranchi-834008 (Jharkhand)

…… Petitioner

Versus

Smmari Lal, aged about 57 years, son of Late Mishri Lal Balmiki, resident of 354, RIMS Staff

Quarter, Bariatu, PO- Bariatu, PS- Bariatu, District- Ranchi

Returning Officer, 65, Kanke (Scheduled Caste), Assembly Constituency, Jharkhand State

Legislative Assembly Election- 2019, 203, B. Block, D. C. Office, Near Kutchery Chowk, PO, GPO-

Ranchi, PS- Kotwali, District-Ranchi

…… Respondents

-----

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate

For the Resp. No. 1

: Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate

Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate

Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate

For the Resp. No. 2

: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate

-----

JUDGMENT

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

C.A.V. dated 02/04/2024

Pronounced on 24/10/2024

This Election Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-Suresh Kumar

Baitha for a declaration that election of Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal from 65, Kanke

(Scheduled Caste), Assembly Constituency, Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly Election-

2019 be declared void and his election may be set aside on the ground that the Returning

Officer has caused improperly received for nomination of Respondent no. 1 and by illegally

allowing him to contest from 65, Kanke (Scheduled Caste), Assembly Constituency,

Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly Election-2019, which was reserved Constituency for

the member of Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:-

(I.)

The Governor of Jharkhand had called upon to constitute the 5th Jharkhand State

Legislative Assembly through General Election (Jharkhand State Assembly Election-2019)

on the basis of adult franchise. Accordingly the Election Commission of India ("ECI")

announced that the general election to constitute 81 elected Members of People

Representative to the Jharkhand State Assembly will be held in 5 phases in the State of

Jharkhand. As per notification of Election Commission of India, date of completion of

election process was 29.12.2019.

(II.)

The programme for holding the Election of 65, Kanke (Scheduled Caste) Assembly

Constituency, under 3rd phase was as under: -

Sl.

Nos.

Subject of Programme

Dates

(i)

Issue of notification

16.11.2019

(ii)

Last date of filing nominations

25.11.2019

(iii)

Scrutiny of nominations

26.11.2019

(iv)

Last date for withdrawal of candidate

28.11.2019 upto

03:00 P.M.

(v)

Date of allotment of symbols

28.11.2019

(vi)

Date of Polling

12.12.2019

(vii)

Date of counting and declaration of result

23.12.2019

(viii)

Date of completion of election process

29.12.2019

(III.)

The seat of 65, Kanke, State Assembly Legislative Constituency is reserved for

Scheduled Caste Candidate of the State of Jharkhand.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(IV.)

The petitioner filed his nomination as candidate set up by Indian National Congress

("INC") for being elected as Member of State Legislative Assembly from 65, Kanke (SC),

Assembly Constituency. He filed his nomination papers as a Scheduled Caste Candidate of

State of Jharkhand along with valid documents including original valid Caste Certificate

issued by the competent authority. At the time of scrutiny, no objection whatsoever from any

corner raised by any of the candidate or their authorized agent against the validity of the

documents submitted by the petitioner along with his nomination.

(V.)

The Respondent no. 1 and 11 other candidates also filed their respective nomination

papers before the Returning Officer. The Respondent no. 1 filed his nomination paper with

self-declaration in "Form 2B, Part-III" that he is Member of "Scheduled Caste", which is a

Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand. The Respondent no.

1 was set up as a candidate by the Bhartiya Janta Party. The Respondent no. 1 has not even

specified the name of the caste from which he belongs to.

VI.

The petitioner as well as its party (Indian National Congress) raised written

objection on 26.11.2019 before the Returning Officer regarding Caste Certificate of

Respondent no. 1. It was seriously contended that the Respondent no. 1 is not the permanent

resident of Jharkhand and, hence, he is not entitled for any reservation in the State of

Jharkhand. It is stated that a Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe person who migrates from

one State of his origin to another State in search of employment or for education purpose or

the like, cannot be treated as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled

Tribe of the State to which he migrates and, hence, he cannot claim benefit as such in the

later State.

(VII.) It is stated that as per the guidelines of Election Commission of India, the candidates

are required to submit their original Caste Certificate along with nomination papers. The

Respondent no. 1 along with his nomination paper submitted a photo copy of caste.

certificate, which was also objected by the petitioner on the ground that the nomination paper

of Respondent no. 1 is incomplete, but, the Returning Officer did not deliberately took any

decision on it and cleared the scrutiny of the documents of Respondent no. 1.

(VIII.) After the date of withdrawal of nomination paper, altogether 12 candidates including

the petitioner were declared as contesting candidates for 65, Kanke (Scheduled Caste

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Constituency) in Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly Election-2019 and their respective

symbols were allotted to them.

(IX.)

The polling was held on the specified date i.e. 12.12.2019. After the counting was

done, results were declared on 23.12.2019, and the Respondent no. 1 was declared to be

elected.

(X.)

The Respondent no. 5, Smmari Lal from BJP secured 1,11,975 votes whereas the

petitioner- Suresh Kumar Baitha from Indian National Congress had secured 89,435 votes

and other ten (10) candidates were secured least votes than them.

(XI.)

The Respondent no. 1 has got himself elected by suppressing the material

information and by adducing false declaration that he is a Member of Scheduled Caste in

relation to the State of Jharkhand. This wilful wrong disclosure amounts to misinformation

about his caste and the same has rendered the election of Respondent no. 1 to be void.

(XII.) The Respondent no. 1 has played fraud for setting himself as candidate in an

Assembly Constituency which is reserved for candidate of Scheduled Caste of the State of

Jharkhand.

(XIII.) The Returning Officer illegally allowed the Respondent no. 1 to contest from 65,

Kanke (SC) Constituency which is a reserved seat for Scheduled Caste Candidate of the State

of Jharkhand.

(XIV.) The father of Respondent no. 1 and their ancestors originally belong to State of

Rajasthan.

(XV.) It is stated that the Respondent no. 1 is a permanent resident of Rajasthan and he is

not permanent resident of Jharkhand. Ministry of Home, Government of India, Letter No.

BC16015/1/82SC & BC-I dated 20.02.1985, Letter No. 7/Bha.Vi.Sa. 016-15/04 Ka 3557

dated 18.10.2005 and Letter No. 14/Ja.Ni.-03- 13/2016 Ka.6763 dated 05.08.2016 both

issued by Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa, Government of

Jharkhand clearly provide that unless the applicant or his ancestor is a permanent resident of

the State prior to issuance of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, no Caste

Certificate can be issued to such person. In view of the aforesaid, Caste Certificate of

Respondent no. 1 is ex-facie illegal, void as the same has been obtained by misrepresentation

and suppression of material facts.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(XVI.) The Respondent no. 1 may be a member of Scheduled Caste in the State of his origin

i.e. Rajasthan, but, having migrated to the State of Jharkhand, he cannot be treated as a

person belonging to the Scheduled Caste of the Jharkhand to which he migrated. The

Respondent no. 1 cannot claim status of benefit of Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand.

(XVII.) The Respondent no. 1 got himself elected from a seat which is reserved seat for a

member of Scheduled Caste of the State of Jharkhand. The Respondent no. 1 is not a member

of Scheduled Caste of the State of Jharkhand and, thus, he was never eligible to contest from

65, Kanke (SC) Assembly Constituency.

(XVIII.) The result of election of 65, Kanke (SC) State Assembly Constituency has been

materially effected by improper acceptance of nomination of Respondent no. 1. Likewise, the

entire election for the said seat has also been materially effected due to non-compliance of the

provisions of Section 33 of Representation of People Act, 1951, and also for violation of

Article 332 and 341 of the Constitution of India.

(XIX.) That the Respondent no. 1 has committed offence under Section 125A of

Representation of People Act, 1951, as he has given false information with an intent to be

elected in the election. The Caste Certificate obtained by Respondent no. 1 is not a valid

certificate.

(XX.) The petitioner was a contesting candidate of 65, Kanke (SC) State Assembly

Constituency in Jharkhand State Assembly Election- 2019, and as such, he has right under

Section 81 of Representation of People Act, 1951, to file this election petition.

(XXI.) The petitioner is only claiming declaration that election of Respondent no. 1 to be

declared as void without any further claim for declaration about himself or any other

candidate to be duly elected as Returned Candidate, therefore, in view of Section 82(a) of

Representation of People Act, 1951, only the Returned Candidate is required to be arrayed as

necessary party in this election petition.

On the other hand, the case of the Respondent no. 1, in brief, is as follows:-

(I.)

The Election Petition filed by the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and

vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

(II.)

The election petition filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(III.)

The election petition filed by the petitioner is barred by the principles of waiver,

estoppel and acquiescence.

(IV.)

It is stated that prior to filing of the instant election petition one Priya Ranjan Sahay

had filed writ petition before the High Court being W.P.(C) No. 6502 of 2019 for issuance of

direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 4 therein to pass final order upon the complaint

lodged by the writ petitioner stating therein that the nomination filed by Smmari Lal, a BJP

candidate from Kanke (Reserved. Assembly Constituency for SC) by suppressing his place of

origin and by projecting himself as a member of Scheduled Caste of the State of Jharkhand,

although his origin is from the State of Rajasthan and as such he disqualifies himself to be a

candidate in the assembly election. The writ petitioner further prayed to stay participation of

the respondent no. 7 therein in the election or to stay the result of the same till the matter is

finally adjudicated by the High Court.

(V.)

The Respondent no. 1 here in contested the writ petition mainly on the ground that

the writ petitioner, who is not in the electoral roll of the Kanke Assembly Constituency, has

no right to challenge the nomination paper submitted by the respondent no. 7 therein. It was

further stated that as a matter of fact three other candidates of Kanke Assembly Constituency

challenged the candidature of the respondent no. 7 therein by filing objection before the

Returning Officer which were duly considered and rejected. It was also stated that the

Respondent no. 1 herein is an old resident of the State of Jharkhand and the writ petition has

been filed with malice only to put hindrance in the election process.

(VI.)

This High Court, after hearing the other persons i.e. Respondent no. 1 to respondent

no. 7 had dismissed the said Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 6502 of 2019 vide order dated

04.12.2019.

(VII.) The Respondent no. 1 filed his nomination paper for election to the Legislative

Assembly from the Kanke Constituency in the prescribed form supported with relevant

documents including the Caste Certificate issued by the Circle Officer Town Anchal Ranchi

to the effect that the Respondent no. 1 namely Smmari Lal is Bhangi by caste being a

member of Scheduled Caste with self- declaration that he is a member of Scheduled Caste in

the State of Jharkhand and he is permanent resident of Jharkhand. The Respondent no. 1 was

set up as a candidate by Bhartiya Janta Party.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(VIII.) It is incorrect that the Respondent no. 1 is not the permanent resident of Jharkhand.

It is incorrect that a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe person, who migrates from one State

of his origin to another state in search of employment or for education purpose or like,

cannot be treated as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of the

State to which he migrates and hence he cannot claim benefits as such in the latter State. It is

stated that the Respondent no. 1 is permanent resident of Jharkhand. The Respondent

no. 1 was born and brought up at Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand. The Respondent no. 1

has passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 1979 from Zila School, Ranchi and he

did Graduation in the year 1983 from Ranchi University and thereafter he passed Master of

Arts examination in the year 1985 from Ranchi University. The Respondent no. 1 was also

enrolled in N.C.C. which is evident from the provisional certificate issued by

the

Commanding Officer and the Respondent no. 1 was also registered in the Ranchi

Employment Exchange on 27.11.1983 being registration no. 873/83 for the purpose of his

employment. The Respondent no. 1 namely Smmari Lal is permanent resident of Ranchi

District in the State of Jharkhand which is evident from the Aadhar Card issued by the

Government of India.

Photostat copies of the Matriculation Certificate, Mark sheets of Intermediate, Β.Α.

(Hons), M.A. examination, Certificate issued by the Commanding Officer N.C.C.,

Employment Exchange Card and Aadhar Card have been enclosed as Annexure A series to

the written statement.

(IX.)

It is incorrect that as per the guidelines of the Election Commission of India, the

candidates are required to submit their original Caste Certificate along with nomination

papers. The Respondent no. 1 submitted all the relevant documents including Caste

Certificate in accordance with the guidelines of Election Commission of India. The

nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1 was fully complete and the same was in

accordance with the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India. As a matter of

fact three other candidates of Kanke Assembly Constituency including the petitioner

challenged the candidature of the Respondent no. 1 by filing objection before the Returning

Officer which were duly considered and the Returning Officer, after proper scrutiny of the

documents of the Respondent no. 1, rejected the objection and the nomination paper of the

Respondent no. 1 was found valid and the same was cleared after the scrutiny of the

documents.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(X.)

It is incorrect that the Respondent no. 1 has got himself elected by suppressing the

material information and by adducing false declaration that he is a member of Scheduled

Caste in relation to the State of Jharkhand. It is stated that the Respondent no. 1 had

submitted Caste Certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Sadar, Ranchi in

which it has been specifically mentioned that the Respondent no. 1 is by caste Bhangi being

the member of scheduled caste and such declaration made by Respondent no. 1 regarding his

caste is quite legal and valid.

Photostat copy of the Caste Certificate issued by the Circle Officer is enclosed as

Annexure B to the written statement.

(XI.)

The falsity of the claim of the petitioner would be evident from the very fact that the

Respondent no. 1 was also nominated as Executive Councillor of Jharkhand Area

Autonomous Council (JAAC) in the year 1995 and he was allotted residential quarter in

Ranchi. It is stated that the Respondent no. 1 has contested the Assembly elections from

Kanke constituency several times in the past. He contested in the year 1985 as an

independent candidate, in 1990 and 1995 as a Janta Dal candidate, in 2000 as a RJD

candidate and in 2005 & 2009 as Jharkhand Mukti Morcha candidate respectively. The

nomination of the Respondent no. 1 was found valid after scrutiny of the documents

including the Caste Certificate. The Caste Certificate produced by the Respondent no. 1 is

quite legal and valid. The name of the Respondent no. 1 finds place at serial no. 439 of the

voter list of the Assembly election of Kanke constituency 2019.

Photostat copy of the letter issued by the Returning Officer and the voter list have

been annexed as Annexure C series to the written statement.

(XII.) It is incorrect that the Returning Officer illegally allowed the Respondent no. 1 to

contest from 65, Kanke (SC) Constituency which is a reserved seat for a Scheduled Caste

candidate of the State of Jharkhand. It is incorrect that this illegal act of the Returning Officer

has materially affected the outcome of election because the nomination paper of the

Respondent no. 1 was invalid. It is incorrect that the Returning Officer has improperly

accepted nomination of Respondent no. 1 and an ineligible candidate was allowed to contest

from a seat which is a reserved seat for member of Scheduled Caste of the State of

Jharkhand. It is stated that the Respondent no. 1 is a member of scheduled caste which is

evident from bare perusal of the Caste Certificate submitted along with the nomination paper

in the prescribed form before the Returning Officer.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(XIII.) It is incorrect that the father of the Respondent no. 1 and their ancestors originally

belonged to the State of Rajasthan and they are not permanent residents of the State of

Jharkhand. It is incorrect that the family of Respondent no. 1 migrated to the erstwhile State

of Bihar thus the Respondent no. 1 is not the permanent resident of the State of Jharkhand. It

is stated that the father of the Respondent no. 1 namely, Mishri Lal Balmiki since deceased

was employed in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences in the year 1965 and rendered his

services to the satisfaction of all superior authorities concerned. The Respondent no. 1 is

permanent resident of the State of Jharkhand.

Photostat copy of the office order issued by the Director R.I.M.S. on 26.11.2019 is

enclosed as Annexure D to the written statement.

(XIV.) It is incorrect that the Respondent no. 1 cannot claim status of benefit of Scheduled

Caste in Jharkhand. It is stated that the Respondent no. 1 is a permanent resident of the State

of Jharkhand.

(XV.) It is stated that the Caste Certificate issued by the Circle Officer, town Anchal, Sadar,

Ranchi is a valid document in order to prove that the Respondent no. 1 is a member of

Scheduled Caste and he is legally entitled to all the benefits admissible to a member of

Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand.

(XVI.) It is incorrect that the result of election of 65, Kanke (SC), State Assembly

Constituency has materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination of Respondent

no. 1. It is incorrect that the entire election for the said seat has also been materially affected

due to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 33 of Representation of People Act,

1951 and also for violation of Article 332 and 341 of the Constitution of India. There has

been no violation of any of the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 nor any

violation of the provision enshrined in the Constitution of India and the result of election is

quite legal and valid.

(XVII.) It is incorrect that the Respondent no. 1 has committed offence under Section 125 A

of Representation of People Act, 1951 as he has given false information with an intent to be

elected in an election.

(XVIII.) The Respondent no. 1 has not suppressed any material information nor false

declaration has been made. The Respondent no. 1 has not played fraud for setting himself as

a candidate in an Assembly Constituency which is reserved for candidate of scheduled caste

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

of the State of Jharkhand. The Respondent no. 1 has not fraudulently obtained false Caste

Certificate. The Caste Certificate submitted by the Respondent no. 1 is quite legal and valid

and hence, the Election Petition may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent

no. 1 and learned counsel for Respondent no. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the election of the

Respondent no. 1 may be declared void and illegal as the Respondent no. 1 has illegally

supressed his caste while contesting the election of 2019 from 65 Kanke (Scheduled Caste)

Constituent Assembly and had produced false Caste Certificate.

It is submitted that the Respondent no. 2 has made improper reception of

nomination of the Respondent no. 1 as Respondent no. 1 is not Scheduled Caste Candidate in

the State of Jharkhand and the Respondent no. 1 was allowed to contest as Scheduled Caste

Candidate illegally and action may be taken against the Respondent no. 2 under Section 125-

A of the Representation of People Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is a candidate of

Indian National Congress and stood 2^nd in the voting and the petitioner is a member of

Scheduled Caste. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed the nomination paper in Form- 2

(k) Rule 4, marked as Ext.-9 and which reveals that the Election Petitioner is by Caste Dhobi

and which is a Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the petitioner

has filed all the documents as per the check list dated 22.12.2019 at 2.40 PM and has

mentioned the Caste Certificate dated 15.11.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Namkum in

the Column -4 of the nomination paper. It is submitted that Ext.-10 is the nomination paper of

the Respondent no. 1 dated 23.11.2019 and in page-3, the Respondent no. 1 has merely given

declaration that Respondent no. 1 is member of Scheduled Caste, but he has not mentioned

his caste in Ext.-10. Respondent no. 2, on scrutiny, has mentioned that the Election Petitioner

scrutiny filled up properly and Form-A and Form-B, Caste Certificate etc. are correct and no

objection was raised by any one including the Respondent no. 1 on the point of filing of

nomination paper and nomination of election petitioner was accepted by the Returning

Officer. It is submitted that serial no. 09 reveals the order dated 26.11.2019, which shows the

filing of nomination paper by Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1 and which also shows

that the petitioner had filed objection and three persons had raised objection on the

nomination of the Respondent no. 1, who were Suresh Kumar Baitha (i.e. the

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

petitioner), Kamlesh Ram and one Rajan Nayak and the petitioner has filed written objection,

which has been marked as Ext.-1.

It is submitted that as per the letter issued by the Jharkhand Pradesh Congress

Committee it has been pointed out that the Respondent no. 1 is the resident of Rajasthan and

living in Ranchi since 1978 and his ancestors came to Ranchi and he is not the resident of

Jharkhand. It has also been pointed out that the Respondent no. 1 got prepared wrong Caste

Certificate manually in the year 2001 and which may be verified and Caste Certificate filed

by the Respondent no. 1 is defective upon the Rules of Department of Personal,

Administrative, Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand issued in the year 2016. It

is submitted that Clause-2 of the said letter i.e. Ext.-11 clearly shows that the residence of

such persons will not be governed in the State of Jharkhand, who had worked in their original

State in light of the order dated 22.02.1985 issued by the Government of India. It is submitted

that the election of the Respondent no. 1 as a winning candidate is also void in view of

Section 33 read with Section 100 (d) (I) to (IV) of the Representative of People Act and also

in violation of the Article 332 and 341 of the Constitution of India. The election of the

Respondent no. 1 is also void in view of the Section 43 of the Representative of People Act

and also in light of the Annexure-9 Ext.-18/64 and Annexure-10 Ext.-18/67 respectively.

It is further submitted that the Respondent no. 1 has not mentioned specific caste

of Scheduled Caste at the time of filing his nomination paper and the Respondent no. 1 had

not produced his original Caste Certificate before the Respondent no. 2 at the time of filing of

his nomination paper.

Thus, there is suppression of material fact by the Respondent no. 1 and even the

Respondent no. 2 has illegally accepted the nomination paper of the Respondent no.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Article 332 and 341 of the

Constitution of India and has submitted that in view of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste)

Order 1950 and Government Order dated 28.10.1956, the benefit of caste reservation cannot

be extended and benefit of reservation cannot be given to the Respondent no. 1 as it has to be

given to the resident of original State of Jharkhand only.

10.

It is further submitted that even the wife of the Respondent no. 1 is a member of

Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan and she has also secured appointment in the State

of Rajasthan by virtue of being a member of Scheduled Caste. Therefore the Respondent no.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

1 cannot take the benefit of him being Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand and his wife

cannot be allowed to take reservation in the State of Jharkhand besides the State of Rajasthan.

It is submitted that the wife of the Respondent no. 1 namely Anita Jedia is currently

employed in Primary Health Centre, Bakhtarpura, Rajasthan as 4^th Grade Employee and as

such, it is evident that the Respondent no. 1 is enjoying the benefit of reservation in both the

States, ie. The State of Jharkhand as well as State of Rajasthan.

11.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the

following Judgments:-

(i)

in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another Versus Union of India and

Another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244.

(ii)

in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore Versus Arun Dattatray Sawant and Ors.

reported in (2014) 14 SCC 162, and

(iii)

in the case of Bir Singh Versus Delhi Jal Board and Others reported in (2018) 10

SCC 312.

12.

On the Other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent no. 1 has submitted that

this Election Petition is misconceived one and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that this

Election Petition has been filed by way of rivalry by the petitioner as he could not succeed in

the Election. It is submitted that the Respondent no. 1 is Scheduled Caste of State of

Jharkhand and the Respondent no. 1 has been born and brought up in the State of Jharkhand

and he has passed all the exams right from Class-I to Matric Examination from the State of

Jharkhand. It is submitted that the Respondent no. 1 had passed Matriculation Examination in

the year 1979 and thereafter he had passed I. A. Examination in the Year 1981 and had

passed BA Examination in the year 1983 and had passed M. A. Examination in the year 1985

and thus the entire Educational Studies of the Respondent no. 1 is based in Jharkhand since

the time of his birth. It is submitted that the Caste Certificate of the Respondent No. 1 issued

on 31.10.2009 is valid and legal and no illegality has been committed by the Anchal

Adhikari, Bargain, Ranchi and also by any State Officials. It is submitted that the petitioner is

by Caste ‘Bhangi’ (Mehtar), which was found and mentioned as per the local enquiry by the

Officials of State of Jharkhand and he has issued Caste Certificate dated 31.10.2009, which is

enclosed as Annexure-B. It is submitted that even initially the Caste Certificate was issued in

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

favour of the Respondent no. 1 by the officials of the Jharkhand Government on 20.01.2005

and thus the Respondent no. 1 has been treated as Bhangi, which is Scheduled Caste in the

State of Jharkhand and also in the erstwhile State of Bihar. It is submitted that the ancestors

of the Respondent no. 1 had been brought from State of Rajasthan during British Period

by the Britishers since before the independence in Ranchi to clean the sewerage, road etc. and

they were settled at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi even before the independence of

India. Thereafter the father of the Respondent no. 1 was appointed in Rajendra Institute of

Medical Sciences (earlier RMCH now RIMS) and he had retired from RIMS and his father

was getting pension from RIMS. It is submitted that the Caste Certificate of the Respondent

no. 1 was challenged by the petitioner and the Caste Scrutiny Committee had cancelled the

Caste Certificate of the Respondent no. 1 and thereafter the Respondent no. 1 had filed W. P.

Shankar) of this Court had set aside the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee by remanding the matter before the said Committee and thus the Caste Certificate

of the Respondent no. 1 is still existing. It is submitted that as the ancestors of the

Respondent no. 1 had settled at Ranchi and as such, Constitution (Scheduled Caste) order no.

1950 and Constitution (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) order 1956 are not applicable

in his case.

13.

It is submitted that the judgement rendered in the case of Action Committee on

Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of

Maharashtra and Another Versus Union of India and Another reported in (1994) 5 SCC

244 and in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore Versus Arun Dattatray Sawant and Ors.

reported in (2014) 14 SCC 162 and in the case of Bir Singh Versus Delhi Jal Board and

Others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 are not applicable on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case. It is submitted that Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India

mandates for reservation of the seats of Assembly/ Lok Sabha Constituency for the members

of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that the Caste Certificate of the

Respondent no. 1 was issued by the Anchal Adhikari after local inspection and as per the

report of the Circle Inspector, which has been marked as Exhibit-15. It is submitted that Ext.-

16 is the letter written by the petitioner to Welfare Department for issuance of Caste

Certificate. It is submitted that in view of the judgment reported in J. Chitra Vs. Disrict

Collector Chairman, State Level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in 2021

(9) SCC 811 at para-8 there is no need to verify the Caste Certificate even from the Caste

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that the Caste Certificate is valid and the Respondent no.

1 is still acquiring the same status. It is submitted that Ext. -9 is the nomination paper of the

petitioner in which he has been declared himself his Caste as “Dhobi” whereas Ext.-10 is the

nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal and he has also mentioned his

category as Scheduled Caste.

14.

It is further submitted that the Constitution with the aid of Article 341 and 342 of

the Constitution of India, a group of castes have been identified to be notified as Schedule

Caste and therefore, by way of this legal fiction created by the Constitution makers, Schedule

Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been identified. The sanctity and legality of Schedule

Castes is as such is no caste and has no social acceptance in aspect of castes but a group of

castes have been identified with the consultation of the State Government/Governor, who

recommends that the castes may be identified as Scheduled Castes and therefore, only after

Presidential Order, a particular caste notified would be deemed to be said as belonging to

Scheduled Caste. It is the settled principle that the election petition must set out all

material facts where from inferences vital to the success of the election petition and

enabling the Court to grant relief prayed for by the petitioner can be drawn subject to

averments substantiated by cogent and appealing evidences.

The Caste Certificate of the petitioner is Ext. No.15, which is issued on 31.10.2009

as contained in Memo No. 6819, it is clear that the petitioner is a "Bhangi sub-caste

(Mehtar)" and it also states that the Caste Certificate has been issued after due local enquiry.

It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganu Ram vs. Rikhi Ram Kaundal

reported in 1984 (3) SCC 649 has exactly dealt with the same issue and observed that the

certificate produced/annexed by the Respondent no. 1 has to be treated as part of the

nomination paper and declaration thereto. It has been alleged that the petitioner originally

belongs to Rajasthan and the petitioner has referred to Circular dated 20.2.1985 issued by

Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. It is submitted that Section 36 of

Representation of People Act clearly deals with scrutiny of nomination and also specifies the

persons who can scrutinize the nomination and file their objection to the nomination paper of

opposite candidates.

15.

It is submitted that Section 36(1) of R. P. Act has been legislated only with the

purpose that any outsider or stranger cannot come and file their objection to the nomination

of candidates.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

For the sake of brevity and convenience Section 36(1) of R.P. Act is quoted hereunder:-

"36. Scrutiny of nomination. –

(1)

On the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations under section 30, the

candidates, their election agents, one proposer 1 of each candidate, and one other

person duly authorised in writing by each candidate but no other person, may attend

at such time and place as the returning officer may appoint; and the returning officer

shall give them all reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers of all

candidates which have been delivered within the time and in the manner laid down in

section 33.”

16.

The learned counsel for the Respondent no. 1 referred Ext. 2 and submitted if

neither carries any name nor designation of the persons who had filed objection. It is

submitted that neither the petitioner in his pleadings nor in his testimony specifies as to

whether they were election agents, proposers or authorized persons. Even those four persons

have not come forward as a witness. It is submitted that the petitioner had not made them his

witnesses and in view of the above this objection letter Ext.-2 cannot be entertained at all. It

is submitted that the Respondent no. 1 has not concealed or suppressed any material fact. The

Caste Certificate, which till date is valid, runs in the name of Respondent no. 1 and as such

presumption lies in favour of the Respondent no. 1, that the Respondent no. 1 is a person

belonging to Schedule Caste in relation to State of Jharkhand.

17.

It is submitted that upon a complaint made by the petitioner before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee for cancellation of Caste Certificate, an enquiry was conducted by Circle

Inspector, Bargain upon the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which submitted

the report dated 30.11.2021 (Ext. 19/2) stating that upon local enquiry made with local

persons belonging to Bhangi caste, it has been brought to notice that the ancestors of Samri

Lal had been settled at Ranchi from the State of Rajasthan prior to independence by British

Government for the purpose of manual scavenging. In fact, the petitioner was examined

as P.W.1 who himself stated at para-17 that he cannot say as to from which town to

Rajasthan the Respondent no. 1 hailed. At para-19 he further stated that the father of Smmari

Lal migrated from the State of Rajasthan during the time of United Bihar. It is submitted that

United Bihar was founded on 22.3.1912. However, the petitioner at para-20 contradicts

himself and stated that he does not known in which year they had migrated from Rajasthan.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

When question was put to petitioner i.e. PW-1 that whether the father of

Respondent no. 1 was living in then State of Bihar since before the independence of the

country, he answered at para-37 that he cannot say whether the father of Respondent no. 1

was living in the then State of Bihar since before the independence of the country. In fact, no

averment has been made in the entire election petition as in which year the ancestors of the

Respondent no. 1 has migrated from State of Rajasthan. It is also pointed that there has been

contradictory evidence of all the PWs. i.e. PW 1 and PW 2. They could not even state the

place, district of Rajasthan from where the Respondent no. 1 belonged to i.e. the place of

origin of Respondent no. 1. The whole case of the petitioner is based on assumption and

presumption. As per the mandate of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, it is bounden duty

of the petitioner to prove his case and the burden lies upon the person who alleges the same.

The petitioner has failed to discharge

his duty to substantiate

his

allegation

with

material facts and cogent evidences. In fact no evidence has been produced and brought on

record by the petitioner to substantiate the Respondent no. 1 is a permanent resident of State

of Rajasthan. It is submitted that 14 witnesses have stated on behalf of the Respondent no. 1

that the ancestors of Respondent no. 1 were residing since before independence in Ranchi. It

is submitted that documentary evidences have also been produced by the petitioner marking

the writ petition of the Respondent no. 1 to be exhibit and in that exhibits (Ext. 5, Page 113),

there is an affidavit of the Respondent no. 1 stating that the ancestors of the Respondent no. 1

were settled in the year 1928 at Balmiki Nagar, Kishoregunj, Ranchi. He also stated that his

cousin brother Sajna Ram was in service at Nagar Palika from 1940 till 1955 and thereafter in

1955 he joined Ranchi University. He stated that his Aunt was also an employee of Ranchi

Nagar Palika and was appointed in the year 1950. He states that he had filed RTI application.

He has also produced the service record of Sajna Ram (his cousin). Ext. 5 starting from page

78, which states the date of beginning of service to be 25.1.1955. At page no. 82 of the same,

the residence is noted as Harmu Road, Kishoreganj. It is submitted that the petitioner has also

produced the Service Book of Gulabia Devi (i.e. DW-3), who happens to be Mami of

Respondent no. 1, which at page no. 75, Ext. 5, suggests that she is the resident of Harmu

Road, Harijan Colony as would appear from page 77 a noting in which LTI has been taken on

5.3.1950.

18.

Learned counsel for the Respondent no. 1, in support of his contention, has relied

upon the following Judgments:-

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(1)

in the case of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Versus A. Santhana Kumar and Others

reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 573,

(ii)

in the case of Laddu Ram Versus Jaipal Singh passed in Election Petition No. 08

of 2019 vide judgment dated 08.11.2023 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Gwalior,

(iii)

in the case of Jaipal Singh v. Sumitra Mahajan reported in (2004) 4 SCC 522,

(iv)

in the case of Smt. Saroja Devi Gupta Vs. Smt. Aruna Jaiswal reported in 2018

SCC OnLine Chh 755,

(v)

in the case of Sadashiv H. Patil Versus Vithal D. Teke and Others reported in

2000 (8) SCC 82,

(vi)

in the case of Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Versus Naresh K. Shigaonkar reported

in 2009 (9) SCC 310 ,

(vii)

in the case of Rajendra Kr. Meshram Versus Vanshmani Prasad Verma and

Another reported in 2016 (10) SCC 715,

(viii)

in the case of Santosh Yadav Versus Narendra Singh reported in 2002 (1) SCC

160,

(ix)

in the case of Union of India and Others. Versus Dudh Nath Prasad reported in

2000 (2) SCC 20,

(x)

in the case of Prashant Vidyarthy (In 4050) and Suman Kr. Singh (In 3912)

Versus State of Jharkhand and Ors. Reported in 2002 SCC Online Jhar 1011.

It is submitted that in view of the above, this Election Petition may be

dismissed.

19.

Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent

no. 2 has submitted that the nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1 has been validly

accepted by then Respondent No. 2. It is submitted that as per guidelines issued by Election

Commission of India with regard to Caste of the Candidate, the Returning Officer has acted

properly and all the steps have been taken by the Returning Officer as per ‘Handbook’

provided to him by the Election Commission of India. It is submitted that power to conduct

election is vested under Article 324 of the Constitution of India to control and conduct the

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

election. It is submitted that the guideline of the Election Commission of India is statutory. It

is submitted that Clause- 6.10 provides grounds for rejection of nomination paper. It is

submitted that in light of the Sub-clause (viii) item no-iii of the Clause 6.10 and item no.

(viii) the Caste Certificate has to be seen mainly on the ground as follows:-

(i)

Forged certificate or genuine,

(ii)

Whether it was issued by the Competent Authority or not ?

20.

It is submitted that the Returning Officer has acted in the mandate of Handbook of

Election Commission of India. It is further submitted that the Election Petitioner has not

challenged before the Respondent no. 2 that the Caste Certificate of the Respondent no. 1 was

a forged certificate, rather the election-petitioner has challenged the validity of Caste

Certificate merely and as such, the Returning Officer has acted within its jurisdiction and as

per guideline provided in the Handbook of Election Commission of India. Thus, there is no

merit in this Election Petition. It is submitted that even the Returning Officer had made local

enquiry and had obtained the report of the Circle Inspector as well as Circle Officer, Bargain,

Ranchi and the objection raised by the Election-petitioner was considered and found that the

same was devoid of merit and thus, this Election Petition may be dismissed.

21.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no question

of application of Article 324 of Constitution of India in the present case. It is submitted that

argument raised by the Respondent no. 1 is beyond pleadings. It is submitted that the

Respondent no. 2-Election Commission of India has not filed any counter affidavit to the

ground raised in the Election Petition by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the

Returning Officer has been examined as a Respondent’s witness as DW-15-A and the

Respondent no. 2 is hand in glove with the Respondent no. 1. It is submitted that ‘Handbook’

filed in this case by the Election Commission is not part of the record and as such, no reliance

can be placed upon the same. It is further submitted that no verification report has been

brought on record by the Returning Officer in the order sheet dated 26.11.2019 and the

Returning Officer has not discharged his duties diligently as an Election Officer. It is further

submitted that the Returning Officer has not named any person as a witness for verification of

the Caste Certificate of the Respondent no. 1. It is submitted that even the place of

verification of the certificate of Respondent no. 1 has not been disclosed by the Returning

Officer either by filing any counter affidavit or during the evidence before this Court. It is

further submitted that the Returning Officer has committed grave illegality by accepting the

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

photocopy of the Caste Certificate produced by the Respondent no. 1 and the Returning

Officer has illegally and wrongly accepted the Caste Certificate filed on behalf of the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal. It is submitted that neither any slip nor any chit of paper was

filed by the Returning Officer to show that the Caste Certificate of the Respondent no. 1 was

verified by the particular Circle Officer. Hence, the election of the Respondent no. 1 may

be declared as void.

22.

By way of reply, learned counsel for the Respondent no. 1 has further submitted

that there was no Clause in the nomination paper to file Original Caste Certificate and as

such, the original Caste Certificate was not required to be produced at the time of filing of

nomination paper. It is further submitted that the Original Caste Certificate of the Respondent

no. 1 was filed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh

Shankar) in W. P. (C) No. 1583 of 2022 and it was also filed before the Caste Scrutiny

Committee.

23.

Perused the record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides.

24.

It transpires that prior to filing of this Election Petition No. 03 of 2020, one Priya

Ranjan Sahay, a Voter of Ranchi Assembly Constituency had filed W.P.(C) No. 6502 of

2019 before this Court for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 4 including

Returning Officer for passing final order upon the complaint lodged by him on the ground

that the nomination filed by Smmari Lal ( i.e. Respondent no. 7 in that writ petition) – a

B.J.P. candidate from Kanke (reserved assembly constituency for Scheduled Caste) by

suppressing his place of origin and by projecting himself as member of Scheduled Caste of

the State of Jharkhand, although his origin is from the State of Rajasthan.

25.

The above W.P.(C) No. 6502 of 2019 was disposed of on 04.12.2019 by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Shankar) with the following

observations as follows:-

“Para-14:- In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that since the

election process is continuing and the

dispute has been raised by the petitioner in relation to acceptance of the nomination papers of the

respondent no. 7 by the returning officer, the writ petition preferred by him is not maintainable. So

far as the facts pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ petition is concerned, he has not brought

on record any such conclusive proof or an adjudication by appropriate court of law/forum that the

respondent no. 7 is a permanent resident of the State of Rajasthan . Be that as it may. Since those are

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

the questions of facts and as has been observed by this Court that the present writ petition preferred

by the petitioner is not maintainable as the election process is still continuing, there is no need to

entertain the said factual issues raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

26.

It further transpires that during pendency of the instant Election No. 03 of 2020

before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Caste Certificate dated 31.10.2019 of the

Respondent no. 1 was cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and thereafter the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal had filed W. P (C) No. 1583 of 2022 for quashing the order

dated 01.04.2022 issued under the signature of the Member Secretary, Caste Scrutiny

Committee-cum- Special Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste,

Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no.3 in the

said W. P (C) No. 1583 of 2022) by which the Caste Certificate dated 31.10.2009 of the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal was cancelled.

27.

Thereafter, the said W. P (C) No. 1583 of 2022 was disposed of vide order dated

31.01.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Shankar) and the

operative portion of the order as mentioned in para-58 and 59 read as follows:-

Para-58:- In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in law and thus the same is quashed. The

matter is remitted to the Cast Scrutiny Committee with following directions:- (i)The concerned

department of the Government shall constitute a Vigilance Cell in conformity with the guidelines

issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).

(ii) The Vigilance Cell will conduct a preliminary inquiry on the complaint of the respondent no.4

and submit a report to the Committee strictly following the procedures laid down in the judgment

rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).

(iii)

If it is found from the report that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner is illegal, the

Committee will issue show cause notice to the petitioner to submit reply, otherwise the Committee

will drop the proceeding.

(iv)

The Committee, after receiving reply of the petitioner (if the situation so warrants), will

provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 to adduce their

respective evidences and to rebut the rival claims.

(v)

Thereafter, the Committee will pass final order on affording due opportunity of

hearing to the parties.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Para-59:- The Writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and

directions.”

28.

It has been informed during course of hearing of this Election that the Election

Petitioner had filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. Although

the LPA number has not been disclosed before this Court by either side of the parties,

However, while going through the website of the Jharkhand High Court, it

appears that L.P.A. No. 51 of 2023 was filed by the Election Petitioner, Suresh Kumar Baitha

whereas the L.P.A. No. 93 of 2023 was filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and L.P.A.

No. 130 of 2023 was filed on behalf of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal before the Division

Bench of this Court. However, all the above Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed as not

pressed for on 04.07.2024.

29.

The web copy of the order dated 04.07.2024 obtained from the website of the

High Court of Jharkhand passed in L.P.A. No. 51 of 2023 along with L.P.A. No. 93 of 2023

and L.P.A. No. 130 of 2023, reads as follows:-

“All these three appeals have been listed together with respect to adjudication of the issue of caste

status of the appellant and the respondent.

It has been informed by the learned counsels appearing for the parties that during pendency of the

issue of caste, the appellant of L.P.A. No.130 of 2023 has already won the election. Thereafter,

Election Petition has been filed by the appellant of L.P.A. No.51 of 2023. It has further been

submitted that in the said Election Petition, i.e., Election Petition No.03 of 2020, the hearing has

been concluded and judgment has been reserved.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the learned counsels for the parties are not pressing the appeals

since the final declaration is expected to come in Election Petition No.03 of 2020.

Considering the aforesaid facts that the very issue of the status of caste is already under

consideration before the learned Trial Court for its adjudication in Election Petition No.03 of 2020,

these appeals are dismissed as not pressed.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

30.

It transpires from the record that the Election-Petitioner, in support of his case, has

got examined following witnesses, who are as follows:-

(i)

P.W.-1, Suresh Kumar Baitha, i.e. the Election-Petitioner and

(ii)

P. W.-2, is Gulzar Ahmad.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

31.

The Election-Petitioner, in support of his case, has got proved following

documents, which are as follows:-

(i)

Exhibit-1 is the Copy of Letter No.265/11/2019 dated 26.11.2019 filed by

Indian National Congress Committee. [Objection petition filed by the Indian National

Congress dated 26.11.2019 under the signature of Suresh Kumar Baitha)

(ii)

Exhibit- 2 is the Copy of Letter Ref. No.02 of 2019 dated 26.11.2019 filed by

Election Petitioner. [Another objection petition filed by the Jharkhand State Congress

Committee dated 26.11.2019 signed by Alok Kumar Dubey, Kishore Kumar Sahdeo, Rajiv

Ranjan Prasad and Rajesh Thakur).

(iii) Ext. -3 is the certified copy of the W. P. (C) No. 1583 of 2022 filed by the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal challenging the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee by which his Caste Certificate dated 31.10.2009 has been

cancelled, was challenged before this Court.

(iv) Ext.-4 is the Supplementary Affidavit dated 28.04.2022 filed by the Respondent

no. 1, Smmari Lal before the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1583 of 2022

by which he has enclosed the reply on 21.01.2022 filed before the Principal Secretary, Caste

Scrutiny Committee.

(v)

Ext. -5 is another Supplementary Affidavit dated 16.04.2022 filed in the said

W. P. (C) No. 1583 of 2022 by the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal by which the letter dated

03.07.2004 as contained in Memo No. 3540 issued under the signature of Chief Secretary,

Government of Jharkhand, had issued direction for issuance of Caste Certificate and which is

enclosed as SA/1 to this affidavit. He has also enclosed letter dated 26.05.2015 as contained

in Memo No. 1853 issued to all the Deputy Commissioners of the State of Jharkhand

regarding procedure to be adopted while issuing of Caste Certificate on the basis of local

enquiry and which enclosed as SA/2 to this affidavit. He has also enclosed the document in

SA/3, SA/4 to SA/7 series, which are the directions issued by the State Government from

time to time. Annexure-SA/4 is the letter dated 18.11.1982 issued by the Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India regarding issuance of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe

Certificate to migrants from other States/Union Territories.

(vi) Exhibit-6 is the Certified copy of Interlocutory Application No.3643 of 2022

filed by Election Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1583 of 2022.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(vii) Exhibit- 7 is the Certified copy of Interlocutory Application No.3053 of 2022

filed by Respondent no. 1 in W.P.(C) No.1583 of 2022 for stay of order dated 01.04.2022

contained in Memo No.1053 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

(viii) Exhibit- 8 is the Certified copy of order sheet of Writ Petition W.P.(C) No.1583

of 2022.

(ix) Ext. 9 is the certified copy of the nomination paper of the Election-Petitioner,

Suresh Kumar Baitha along with Form- A, which is communication with regard to

Authorized Person to intimate the name of candidate settled by recognized National Party and

the name of the petitioner has been authorized by one Dr. Rameshwar Oraon, President,

Jharkhand Pradesh Congress Committee, Ranchi along with certified copy of the Caste

Certificate of the petitioner dated 15.11.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Namkum and also

Format C-I and declaration by candidate/election agent/proposal while submitting

photograph of the candidate, information of Bank Account number for showing election

expenses and also recording his name in the voter list in the prescribed format.

(x)

Ext. -10 is the certified copy of the nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1,

Smmari Lal consisting of Part-III, Part-IV and petition filed by the candidate in prescribed

format.

Form- B notice is of the name of candidate set up by the political party dated

11.11.2019 containing details of investment and also declaration by candidate/ election

agent/proposal while submitting photograph of the candidate, information of Bank Account

number for showing election expenses and also recording his name in the voter list in the

prescribed format.

Ext.-10 reveals that the wife of Smmari Lal is Grade-IV employee in the State

of Rajasthan and employed in Primary Health Centre at Bakhatarpura registration as Grade-

IV employee.

Form-A discloses that the name of the Respondent no. 1 was authorized by

Laxman Gilua, State Party President of BJP.

(xi) Ext.-11 is letter dated 05.08.2016 issued by the Principal Secretary of

Personnel, Administration Forms and Rajbhasha Department and para-2 of which reveals that

as per the guideline of Home Ministry dated vide letter dated 22.02.1985, the election of such

people is not admissible, who has come to this State for the purpose of taking education and

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

employment from the other State. Such person can be provided certificate on the basis of

Caste Certificate of his father in which, the Original State is mentioned.

(xii) Ext.-12 is the letter dated 18.10.2005 issued by the Principal Secretary of

Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department showing superseding of the

letter dated 18.11.1982 issued by Union of India.

(xiii) Ext.-13 is the General Notice dated 01.04.2017 of the above of Sub-Divisional

Officer, Sadar, Ranchi for the purpose of maintaining the name of SC/ST/OBC.

(xiv) Exhibit – 14 is the Signature of the witness on the copy of the Writ Petition

filed in this court vide W.P.(C) No.1583 of 2022.

(xv) Exhibit – 15 is the Caste Certificate annexed with the said Writ Petition vide

W.P.(C) No.1583 of 2022.

(xvi) Exhibit – 16 is the Copy of complaint petition of Suresh Kumar Baitha annexed

with the Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.1583 of 2022.

(xvii) Exhibit – 17 to 17/7 respectively are the Letter dated 06.01.2021, 15.03.2021,

15.03.2021, 19.07.2021, 19.07.2021, 07.09.2021, 21.01.2022, 21.01.2022 respectively from

Caste Scrutiny Committee annexed with the Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.1583 of 2022 as

Annexure-4 Series are marked as Exhibits-17 to 17/7 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court.

(xviii)

Exhibit – 18 and Ext. -18/1 and Ext.-18/2 respectively are the reply of

Smmari Lal to Member Secretary, Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 31.03.2021, 18.08.2021

and 20.07.2021 respectively.

(xix) Ext.-18/3 to 18/8 respectively is the reasoned order passed by the Scheduled

Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority and Backward Class, Social Welfare Department,

Jharkhand,

Ranchi

(xx) Ext.-18/9 to 18/18 respectively are the Gazette Notification dated 10.08.1950

with regard to The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, which including the castes

declared in the States of the India including Bihar and Rajasthan etc.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(xxi) Ext.-18/19 to 18/63 respectively are the Gazette Notification dated 29.10.1956

issued with regard to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order,

1956 (marked before the Co-ordinate Bench).

(xxii) Ext.-18/64 to 18/66 respectively are the notification dated 22.03.1977 issued

by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 22.03.1977 to the Chief

Secretary to all the State Governments/ Union Territory Administrations with regard to issue

of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Certificates Clarifications regarding.

(xxiii) Ext.-18/67 to 18/68 are the letter dated 22.02.1985 issued by the Joint

Secretary, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairs.

(xxiv) Ext.-18/69 is the Letter No. 14 dated 05.08.2016 issued by the Government of

Jharkhand, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha to all the

Deputy Commissioners for issuance of Caste Certificate.

(xxv) Ext. -18/70 is the letter dated 30.11.2021 sent by the S.I. Bargain, Ranchi to

Anchal Adhikari, Bargain, Ranchi with regard to Caste of Smmari Lal (MLA) Kanke Vidhan

Sabha.

(xxvi) Exhibit- 19 to 19/1 are letter dated 09.12.2020 sent by Anchal Adhikari,

Bargain, Ranchi to the Deputy In-charge District Confidential Section, Ranchi Exhibit- 19/2

is letter dated 30.11.2021 sent by Circle-Inspector, Bargain, Ranchi to Anchal Adhikari,

Bargain, Ranchi.

32.

The Respondent no. 1, in support of his case, has got examined the following

witnesses, who are as follows:-

(i)

D.W.-1 is Dilip Ram,

(ii)

D.W.-2 is Jugal Ram,

(iii)

D.W.-3 is Gulabiya Devi,

(iv)

D.W.-4 is Sajna Ram,

(v)

D.W.-5 is Binod Ram, S/o Bannu Ram,

(vi)

D.W.-6 is Krishna Ram,

(vii)

D.W.-7 is Tikam Chand Pawar,

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(viii)

D.W.-8 is Basant Ram,

(ix)

D.W.-9 is Anand Kumar Balmiki,

(x)

D.W.-10 is Binod Ram, S/o Baiju Ram,

(xi)

D.W.-11 is Parbhati Ram,

(xii)

D.W.-12 is Bhagi Ram,

(xiii)

D.W.-13 is Brij Kishore Viyay,

(xiv)

D.W.-14 is Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1 himself,

(xv)

D.W.-15 is Damodar Ram,

(xvi)

D.W.-15A is Manoj Kumar Ranjan (Returning Officer)

(xvii)

D.W.-16 is Jyoti Kumar Singh, and

(xviii) D.W.-17 is Kund Chandra Mehta.

33.

The Respondent no. 1, in support of his case, has got proved the following

documents, which are as follows:-

(i)

Exhibit-A is the Letter/ Memo of retirement dated 06th May, 2003 of Mr.

Prabhati Lal @ Prabhati Ram (D.W.11).

(ii)

Exhibit-B is the Office Order dated 28.04.2014 with respect to retirement of

Bhagi Ram Balmiki (D.W.12) .

(iii)

Exhibit –C is the Letter dated 17.10.2022 addressed to the Hon'ble Governor.

(iv)

Exhibit-D is the Photocopy of the Caste Certificate of Respondent no.1

(v)

Exhibit- D/1 is the Original copy of Aadhar Card of Respondent no. 1

(vi)

Exhibit- D/2 is the Original Certificate of Matric Examination of Respondent

no. 1

(vii)

Exhibit- D/3 is the Original Certificate of Mark-sheet of Intermediate of

Respondent no. 1.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

34.

The following documents have been marked for identification on behalf of the

petitioner:-

(i)

Document - 'X' is Khatiyan,

(ii)

Document - X/1 is Khewat and

(iii)

Document - X/2 is Malguzari Receipt.

35.

The following documents

have been marked for identification of the

Respondent no. 1:-

(i)

Document –Y is the photocopy of Service Book of Sri Sajna Ram, Biology

Department, Ranchi College, Ranchi erstwhile employee of Ranchi University and

(ii)

Document -Y/1 is the photocopy of application for pension other than family

pension and for gratuity.

36.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar

Choudhary) has framed the following issues on 03.12.2021, which are as follows:-

(i)

Whether the petition as framed and filed is maintainable?

(ii)

Whether there is cause of action for filing this Election Petition?

(iii)

Whether the petition is barred by limitation, doctrine of waiver, estoppel and

acquiescence?

(iv)

Whether the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste in relation to State of

Jharkhand?

(v)

Whether the Respondent no. 1 has fraudulently obtained Caste Certificate

and using the same has deceived the Respondent no.2 to setup himself as a candidate

in Reserved Constituency for Scheduled Caste candidate of the State of Jharkhand?

(vi)

Whether the Respondent no.2 has illegally allowed the Respondent no. 1 to

contest from 65, Kanke (SC) Constituency?

(vii)

Whether the father of the Respondent no. 1 and his ancestors originally

belong to State of Rajasthan?

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(viii)

Whether the Respondent no. 1 is not a permanent resident of State of

Jharkhand?

(ix)

Whether the family members of Respondent no. 1 are taking the benefits of

reservation both in the State of Jharkhand and Rajasthan as Scheduled Castes

persons?

(x)

Whether the result of election of 65, Kanke (SC) State Assembly

Constituency has been materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination of

Respondent no. 1?

(xi)

Whether the Respondent no. 1 is by caste Bhangi and a member of

Scheduled Caste?

(xii)

Whether the Caste Certificate issued to the Respondent no. 1 is in violation

of Letter No.BC16015/1/82SC & BC-2 dated 20.02.1985, Letter No.7/Bha.Vi.Sa.

016-15/04 Ka 3557 dated 18.10.2005 and Letter No.14/Ja.Ni.-03-13/2016 Ka.6763

dated 05.08.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms &

Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand?

(xiii)

Whether the election of Respondent no. 1 from the 65, Kanke (SC)

Constituency is liable to be set aside?

(xiv)

To what relief/reliefs, the petitioner is entitled to ?

37.

So far as oral evidence is concerned, P.W. -1 is Suresh Kumar Baitha i.e. the

Election Petitioner, who has filed his affidavit on an affidavit in Hindi by stating therein that

he is the petitioner of this case and has challenged the election of the Respondent no. 1 of the

65 Kanke (SC), Constituency Assembly Region during the Election of Vidhan Sabha of the

State of Jharkhand, 2019. He stated that this 65 Kanke (SC), State Legislative Assembly

Region is reserved for the candidate of Scheduled Caste and he filed his application for

electing him as candidate from Indian National Congress and had participated in the election.

He has filed his nomination papers before the Court, which are in 32 pages. He further stated

that apart from him, the Respondent no. 1 and eleven (11) other persons had filed their

nomination papers. The Respondent no. 1 had filed his nomination papers as a candidate of

Bhartiya Janta Party (in short BJP) being addressing himself as Scheduled Caste Candidate

and has also filed nomination papers. He further stated that the Respondent no. 1 has

deceitfully and wrongfully participated in the election by declaring himself as a candidate of

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Scheduled Caste whereas the Respondent no. 1 is not Scheduled Caste of resident of State of

Jharkhand. The Party i.e. Indian National Congress of the petitioner had filed an application

before the Chief Election Officer on 26.11.2019 for restraining the Respondent no. 1 from

participating in the election as Scheduled Caste Candidate.

38.

He also filed his objection before the Returning Officer on 26.11.2019 for

verifying and cancelling the nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1 and the said objection

was marked as Ext. I.

However, despite objection raised by the petitioner, neither the Returning Officer

nor the Chief Election Officer did anything and the Respondent no. 1 was permitted to

contest in the Assembly Election only on the basis of photocopy of the Caste Certificate of

Respondent no. 1 and the Respondent no. 1 was wrongly permitted to participate in the

Election from the reserved seat as the Respondent no. 1 is not Scheduled Caste of the State of

Jharkhand. Hence, he was not competent to contest the election. He further stated that the

Returning Officer had accepted the nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1 in the wrong

manner and allowed him to participate in the election whereas 65 Kanke (SC), Constituent

Assembly which is reserved for the candidate of Scheduled Caste. He further stated that the

Respondent no. 1 is the mainly resident of the State of Rajasthan and his father was given job

in Rajendra Ayurvedic Sansthan i.e. (Rajendra Institute of Medical Science), Ranchi. The

family member of the Respondent no. 1 had migrated to erstwhile State of Bihar and thus, the

Respondent no. 1 is not permanent resident of Jharkhand. Even his wife Anita Jedia is Class-

IV Employee in the Primary Health Centre as a candidate of Scheduled Caste in the State of

Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Government.

Thus, the Respondent no. 1 and his family are taking benefits of reservation in

both the States i.e. Jharkhand and Rajasthan and the Respondent no. 1 is not the

Scheduled Caste of Jharkhand.

He proved the letter no. 14 dated 05.08.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand to be marked as Ext. -11

He also proved Letter No. 7 dated 08.10.2005 issued by the Department of

Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand marked as Ext. -

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

39.

He further stated that the Respondent no. 1 has wrongly and deceitfully filed the

Scheduled Caste Certificate and against which he had also raised objection before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee and on his objection so raised, the Caste Scrutiny Committee started

legal process and after following all the procedure established in law, it has cancelled the

Caste Certificate of the Respondent no. 1 vide order dated 01.04.2022. Thereafter the

Respondent no. 1 had filed the writ petition before the High Court challenging the order

dated 01.04.2022 by filing W. P. (C) No. 1583 of 2022.He has filed the certified copy of the

writ petition, (which are in 140 pages) which is marked as Exhibit-3 and also filed certified

copy of the Supplementary Affidavit dated 08.04.2022, (which are in 7 pages) marked as

Exhibit-4 and also filed further certified copy of Supplementary Affidavit dated 16.04.2022,

(which are in 137 pages) and which have been marked as Ext-5.

40.

He had also filed I. A. No. 3643 of 2022 in the said

W. P. (C) No. 1583 of 2022 and the certified copy of the said I. A. No. 3643 of 2022 has

been marked as Ext. -6.

He also stated that even the Respondent no. 1 has filed Interlocutory Application

being I. A. No. 3053 of 2022, which are in 17 pages, which has been marked as Ext. -7

He also filed the certified copy of the order passed in the said W. P. (C) No. 1583

of 2022, (which is in six pages) and which has been marked as Ext.-8.

41.

He further stated that the Respondent no. 1 is not Scheduled Caste of the

State of Jharkhand, despite this fact, he wrongly obtained Caste Certificate and had

participated from the reserved seat of Scheduled Caste and which is completely illegal and

hence, the election of the Respondent no. 1 may be declared as illegal and election may be

cancelled and fresh election may be held.

He further lead evidence before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary). He proved the Election Petition in his writing and

signature, which has been marked as Ext. –I.

The petitioner has further proved two objection petition filed by the Indian

National Congress before the Chief Election Officer and Election Officer on 26.11.2019. This

Objection Petition is in the typed form and was signed by Alok Kumar Dubey, Kishore

Kumar Sahdeo, Rajesh Ranjan Prasad and Rajesh Thakur and it was typed by Damodar

which is marked as Exhibit -2. (Before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court)

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

42.

During cross-examination, he stated that his name figures in the record of rights of

the year 1932 and Khata No. of 1932 Khatiyan is 605 Village Rajaulatu and he is native

resident of that village under Ranchi District. This Khata was recorded in the name of his

grand-father Late Ranjit Dhobi and he lives at his village as well as at Ranchi. His grand-

father was having four brothers and on partition, this land pertaining to this Khata was

allotted to him. He did his Middle School education from St. Josheph School of his Village

and then High School from St. Jons School, Ranchi and did his Graduation from St. Xaviers

College, Ranchi. He did his P.G. from Ranchi University. He came in politics after he passed

Matriculation Examination. His date of birth is 14th January, 1975 and his father was a

farmer. He joined the Congress Party since beginning and for the first time, he contested

election in 2009 on ticket from Indian National Congress in which he lost the election. The

other contesting candidates to that election were Ramchandra Baitha of BJP, Smmari Lal of

JMM and the candidate of BJP has won the election.

However, he had not raised any objection in the year 2009 against the candidature

of Smmri Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1. However, he raised this objection this time before the

Returning Officer.

He also admitted that the Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1

was filed in the Election of 2009 which was also issued by the Ranchi Municipal

Corporation, Ranchi. Even at the time of the preparation of Voter List in the year 2009, he

did not raise any objection regarding caste of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1.

He also stated that his Caste Certificate i.e. the Election Petitioner Caste

Certificate was issued by the Circle Officer, Namkum and he has been contesting the election

since the year 2009. However, the petitioner further asserted during his cross- examination at

Para-17 that the Respondent no. 1 belongs to Bharatpur in State of Rajasthan, but he cannot

say in which town from Rajasthan, Respondent no. 1 hailed. However he asserted that the

father of Smmari Lal had migrated from Rajasthan during the time of United Bihar, but he

does not know, in which year, he had migrated from there. However, he raised the objection

regarding the Caste Certificate of Summari Lal at time of filing of the nomination paper, the

things were stalled for about an hour but thereafter his nomination paper was accepted. He

does not remember the entire list of Scheduled Caste of 1950 and he cannot say whether in

that list the cast of Smmari Lal figured or not.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

The State of Jharkhand came into being on 15.11.2000 and the father of Smmari

Lal was not employed in the State of Jharkhand, but his father was employed in RIMS,

Ranchi and he had retired from there whereas Smmari Lal was born in the year 1963.

He shown ignorance about passing of order by the Jharkhand High Court in Writ

Petition No. 6502 of 2019 and he stated that he does not know Priya Ranjan Sahay.

He firstly filed Election Petition in 2020 and then he went before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee, but neither he got examined any witness in that case nor he was also

examined.

He filed the petition for the cancellation of the nomination of the Respondent no. 1

which was in his writing and signature and objection was raised because the original copy as

required to be filed along with the photocopy was not annexed with the nomination paper. He

raised objection with regard to the Caste Certificate at the time of filing of the nomination

paper in 2019 Assembly Election. The Congress Party had also raised objection regarding the

Caste Certificate of the candidate. He has filed the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee

regarding the domicile of the Respondent no. 1. He had lost the election by about 21,000

votes. Smmari Lal- Respondent no. 1 had not concealed any fact in his nomination paper.

However, he could not say whether the father of Respondent no. 1 was living in then State of

Bihar since before the independence of the Country. He denied the suggestion for being set

up by his party. He denied for giving false evidence in this case.

43.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-1, Suresh Kumar Baitha i.e. Election

Petitioner, it is evident that both the parties i.e. the Election Petitioner and the Respondent no.

1, Smmari Lal had contested 65 Kanke (SC), State Legislative Assembly Constituency during

the Election of Vidhan Sabha of the State of Jharkhand in the year 2019 for being declared as

MLA and total 12 persons had filed their respective nomination papers. He had pointed out

that the Respondent no. 1 is not Scheduled Caste of the State of Jharkhand as his father was

resident of Rajasthan in the District of Bharatpur and he was employed in RIMS at the

relevant time.

He also pointed out that the nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1 was filed

deceitfully and wrongly and despite objection raised by the Election Petitioner, the Returning

Officer had directed him to participate in the Election, and these objections were neither dealt

with by the Returning Officer nor by the Chief Election Officer and the Respondent no. 1

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

was permitted to contest the election and the Returning Officer has wrongly accepted the

nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1, which was reserved for the Candidate of the

Scheduled Caste. He pointed out that Circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms

and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand and also Letter No. 7 dated 08.10.2005

issued by the said Department. \

He has even filed certified copy of W. P. (C) No. 1583 of 2022, which are in 140

pages and in supplementary affidavit dated 08.04.2022 (in 7 pages) and copy of I. A. No.

3643 of 2022 and I. A. No. 3053 of 2022 and the certified copy of order sheet of

W. P. (C) No. 1583 of 2022 (in six (6) pages) and another supplementary affidavit dated

16.04.2022 (in 137 pages). He has also shown ignorance about the order dated 04.12.2019

passed by the High Court in W. P (C) No. 6502 of 2019, which was filed by one Priya Ranjan

Sahay. He further asserted that he raised objection of Caste Certificate of the Respondent no.

1 in the year 2019 for the first time before the Returning Officer, whereas, on the other hand,

he had admitted at Para. 13 and 14 of his cross-examination that the Respondent no. 1,

Smmari Lal had contested the Assembly Election of 2009 as a candidate of JMM and the

petitioner had also contested the Assembly Election of 2009 as a Candidate of Indian

National Congress(i.e. INC), even the winning candidate of 2009 election i.e. Candidate of

BJP namely Ramchander Baitha had not raised any objection on the Caste Certificate of the

Respondent no. 1. However, it is evident from the evidence of the PW.-I that not only the

Election Petitioner Suresh Kumar Baitha, but also the Indian National Congress had filed

objection in writing before the Returning Officer during 2019 Assembly Election in writing,

which has been marked as Ext. -2.

The assertion of the petitioner will be seen and examined again after perusal of the

entire document and evidence of the other witnesses of the petitioner as well as Respondent

no. 1.

44.

P.W.-2 is Gulzar Ahmad, who had also filed his evidence on an affidavit on

13.09.2022 stating therein that the petitioner has filed this application for cancelling/set aside

the Assembly Election of 2019 of the Respondent no. 1 from 65 Kanke (SC), State

Legislative Assembly Constituency of the State of Jharkhand, 2019 and he was nominated as

Election Agent of the petitioner-Suresh Kumar Baitha and the petitioner has made him his

Election Agent. He also asserted that the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal does not fall in the

category of Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand and he has deceitfully participated in

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

the 2019 Election on the basis of false Caste Certificate. Even the petitioner and the Indian

National Congress had raised objection on 26.11.2019 with regard to acceptance of

nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal, but the Returning Officer/ Election

Officer deliberately did not take any steps and had allowed the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal

to contest the 2019 Election from the reserved seat of Scheduled Caste.

He further stated that Late Mishri Lal Balmiki, who was the father of the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal, had come to Ranchi from Rajasthan in the year 1965 for

doing service in then Rajendra Medical College and Hospital and this migration was for the

purpose of doing job. He also asserted that the family of the Smmari Lal is also taking the

benefit of reservation of Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan and his wife is working in

Primary Health Centre, Bharatpur, Rajasthan as a candidate of Scheduled Caste and after

completing procedure describes, the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide its order dated

01.04.2022 has declared the Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal as illegal. He also stated that

Smmari Lal is not a member of Scheduled Caste Candidate in Jharkhand and has wrongly

participated in the Election and hence the election of the Respondent no. 1 may be declared

illegal.

45.

During his cross-examination, he stated that he was born in the year 1980. He

again stated that father of Smmari Lal had come to Ranchi in the year 1965, but he had no

personal knowledge of it. He stated that he is acquainted with Suresh Kumar Baitha for the

last about 15 years and he knows Smmari Lal for the last 5-6 years. He had not given any

objection before the Election Officer. He had not appeared as a witness before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee and had not seen the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated

01.04.2022. He also stated that the wife of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1 (he learnt

her name from the Photocopy of her AADHAR Card, which was given to him by the

petitioner- Suresh Kumar Baitha) is taking benefit of reservation in the State of Rajasthan and

employed in the Health Department, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. However, he has stated that he

does not know whether Smmari Lal, Respondent no. 1 is getting any benefit of Reservation

in the State of Rajasthan or not.

46.

Thus from the scrutinizing the evidence of PW.-2, Gulzar Ahmad, it is evident that

though he had stated that the father of Smmari Lal had come to Ranchi in the year 1965, but

he had no personal knowledge of it as he was born in the year 1980. However, he has also

asserted that wife of the Respondent no. 1 is taking benefit of reservation of Scheduled Caste

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

in the State of Rajasthan and wife of the Respondent no. 1 is working in the Health

Department, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

Thus, PW.-2, Gulzar Ahmad has merely supported the claim and the evidence of

PW.-1, Suresh Kumar Baitha. His evidence is worthy to be considered.

47.

So far as the evidence of the Respondent no. 1 is concerned.

48.

D. W. -1 is Dilip Ram (i.e. son of DW-4) who had also filed his evidence on an

affidavit by stating therein that he is acquainted with the Smmari Lal ie. the Respondent no. 1

since the time of his birth and this case has been instituted by the petitioner- Suresh Kumar

Baitha to cancel the election of 2012 (due to typographical error, it has been mentioned as

‘2012’ instead of ‘2019’). He further stated that his grand-father and father of the Respondent

no. 1 i.e. Smmari Lal were cousin brothers and his grand-father and grand-father of Smmari

Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1 came to Ranchi since before the Independence of India, which was

part of the United Bihar and they were brought to Ranchi by British People for cleaning work

and they were residing at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi. The Respondent no. 1,

Smmari Lal was born at Ranchi in the month of June, 1962 and since then, the Respondent

no. 1 is living in Ranchi since his birth. He also stated that Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent

no. 1 is by Caste Bhangi (Mehtar) and follows the Hindu religion, and he comes in the

category of Scheduled Caste. Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1 has not taken the benefit

of reservation in any other State except Jharkhand (erstwhile State of Bihar).

49.

During cross-examination, he admitted that the Respondent no. 1 had not won any

election before 2019. He further stated that Late Mohan Ram is his grand- father (i.e. grand-

father of the DW-1) and late Janki Ram was the grand-father of Smmari Lal. However, he

had not filed any residential proof of Smmari Lal or his ancestors in the Court. He has shown

ignorance about the name of wife of the Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1, but stated that she

is posted somewhere in Rajasthan. He admitted that the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal

happens to be his relative. He denied the suggestion of giving false evidence as being related

to Smmari Lal.

50.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D. W. -1, Dilip Ram, it is evident that he

is second generation cousin brother of the Respondent no. 1 and has stated that his grand-

father as well as grand-father of the Respondent no. 1 had been brought from Rajasthan to

Ranchi by the British People for the purpose of cleaning works etc. and they were employed

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

and provided job in RIMS before the independence of India and they had settled in the

erstwhile the State of Bihar and now in the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of State. He

had also admitted that the wife of the Respondent no. 1 i.e. Smmari Lal is doing job in the

State of Rajasthan.

51.

It is evident that DW-1 has been examined on the point of settlement of the

ancestors of the Respondent no. 1 in Ranchi and also on the point that Respondent no. 1 had

been born in the month of June, 1962 at Ranchi.

Thus, DW-1 has supported the case of the Respondent no. 1.

52.

D.W.-2 is Jugal Ram, who has filed his evidence on an affidavit on 01.12.2022,

stating therein that he is acquainted with Smmari Lal since his childhood and he resides in the

same Muhulla. He further stated that Late Janki Ram, grand-father of the Respondent no. 1,

Smmari Lal and Mishri Ram, father of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal were resident of

Balmiki Nagar, Ranchi since before the independence and they were residing in Balmiki

Nagar, Harmu Road, which is known as Harijan Colony. He further stated that Smmari Lal is

living in Ranchi since the time of his birth and belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and has

taken education in Ranchi.

53.

During his cross-examination, he denied to have any personal knowledge as to

where Janki Ram was employed and where he was living. He has shown unawareness that

Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal has been cancelled and he is unaware of the relief for which

the present petition has been filed.

54.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-2, Jugal Ram, it is evident that he

has been examined on the point of permanent residence of grand-father of the Respondent no.

1, who came from Rajasthan and settled at Ranchi since before the Independence and were

living in Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi.

Thus, DW-2 has also supported the case of Respondent no. 1.

55.

D.W.- 3 is Gulabia Devi, aged about 88 years and her evidence has also been filed

on an affidavit, stating therein that she is acquainted with Smmari Lal, Respondent no. 1

since the time of his birth and she is aware of filing of this case by the petitioner- Suresh

Baitha against the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal. She was born and brought up in Ranchi

and her father was also resident of Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi and she was married

with Late Ganpath Ram in Balmiki Nagar. She has been living in Balmiki Nagar, Ranchi

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

since before the time of Independence. She was working as Sweeper from 03.03.1950 till her

retirement in Ranchi Municipal Corporation and she has also filed her Service Book.

She has also stated that her original service book was lost and she has filed

photocopy of her said Service book. She also stated that Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal was

born in Balmiki Nagar, Ranchi and comes in the category of Harijan and she is Mami (i.e.

Maternal Aunt) of the Respondent no. 1 in relation.

56.

During cross-examination, she could not say the name of father of Smmari Lal.

She admitted that Mishri Lal Balmiki and Nagar Ram were neither brothers nor relatives to

each other. She had not reported to any competent authority that her original service book

which has been lost. She cannot say from where Mishri Lal Balmiki had come to Ranchi, but

she had seen him at Ranchi.

57.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of DW-3, Gulabia Devi, it is evident that she

has fully supported the case of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal on the point of his being

resident at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi and also on the point of his birth in Ranchi.

She also stated that grand-father of the Respondent no. 1 was residing at Balmiki Nagar,

Ranchi and she was working as Sweeper in Ranchi Municipal Corporation since 1980 till the

date of her retirement. She could not say the name of father of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari

Lal, but she stated that Mishri Lal Balmiki had come to Ranchi, who was the father of the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal.

58.

DW.-4 is Sajna Ram, who is aged about 85 years and has filed his evidence on an

affidavit, stating therein that Smmari Lal S/O Late Mishri Lal Balmiki i.e the Respondent no.

1 is his brother and their ancestors were brought by British People since before Independence

at Ranchi and they were made to settle at Harmu Road, Kishorganj, Balmiki Nagar at Ranchi

and since then they are residing there. He was also born in Harmu Road, Kishorganj, Balmiki

Nagar at Ranchi and his mother Shanti Devi was also employed in Ranchi Municipal

Corporation and retired from there and she was getting pension throughout her life and his

wife Umrao Devi has also retired from Ranchi Municipal Corporation and she is also getting

pension. This witness i.e. DW-4 had also worked in Ranchi University, Ranchi from

25.01.1955 to 28.02.1999 and he is a pensioner employee and he is getting pension in the

Bank Account No. 141 of Central Bank of India, Ranchi College Campus Ranchi and his

original service is in save custody in the Ranchi University. He had also filed photocopy of

his service book. He further asserted that his Uncle and late Mishri Lal Balmiki, father of

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Smmari Lal, i.e. the Respondent no. 1, was paid pension throughout his life while working in

RIMS, Ranchi. He and the ancestors of Smmari Lal have been living together at Balmiki

Nagar, Harmu Road, Kishorganj, Ranchi prior to Independence. His two sons are now

pensionary employee and living in Ranchi.

59.

He further asserted that total four persons i.e. he himself in Ranchi University, his

wife Umrao Devi in RIMS Ranchi, his son Dilip Ram in CMPDI and his another son Tikam

Chand Ram in Ranchi University were Government Servant in State of Jharkhand and they

are the Pensioner Employees. He started service from 25.01.1955 on the salary of Rs. 17 and

8 Aana in the pay-scale of Rs. 19, 1/2-1/2-22,1/2. After retirement he was nominated as

member of District Level Caste Recommendation Committee by the erstwhile State of Bihar.

Minister of the then State Government had issued Character Certificate to him for doing work

for Balmiki Society by him. He also stated that prior to doing job in the University in the year

1955, he had worked as Sweeper in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

60.

However, during his cross-examination, he could not file any documentary

evidence in support of the contention that Mishri Lal (father of the Respondent no. 1) had

been settled at Ranchi during British period. He shown his ignorance regarding documentary

evidence that the ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1 have been living at

Ranchi since before the independence.

61.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-4, Sajna Ram, it is evident that he

has fully supported the case of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal on the point that their

ancestors (i.e. ancestor of DW-4 and ancestor of Respondent no. 1) have been brought from

Rajsathan to Ranchi by the British People since before the Independence and even DW.-4

and his wife and his two sons were given employment at Ranchi University, RMCH and

CMPDI respectively and all of them have retired from their service and they are getting

pension and are living at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Kishorganj, Ranchi. It is also evident

that documentary evidence of ancestors of Smmari Lal for living at Ranchi could not be filed

by him. However, at the same time, the witnesses of the Respondent no. 1 had been cross-

examined on the point of their Ancestors coming from Rajasthan to Ranchi.

62.

DW.-5 is Binod Ram, who is aged about 57 years and he has filed his evidence on

an affidavit, stating therein that his grand-father Late Nathu Ram was working in CPWD on

the post of Lineman and he had been living at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu, Kishorganj, Ranchi

prior to independence. He has stated that presently his uncle Om Prakash Ramis living

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

with his family members in Balmiki Nagar. He stated that he has been working since 1986 in

Union Bank, Shyamli Colony, Doranda whereas his grand-mother late Laxmiramu had

retired as Sweeper from Ranchi Municipal Corporation in the year 1992 and had died in the

year 1998 while residing at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Kishorganj, Ranchi.

63.

He also asserted that his grand-father and grand-mother have been living along

with family members of Smmari Lal at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu, Kishorganj, Ranchi prior to

independence. The Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal has been contesting election since 1985

from various political parties i.e. RJD, JMM and BJP and at that time, none had raised

objection on the caste of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1.

64.

During cross-examination, he stated that Janki Ram was the grand-father of the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal. However, he has shown ignorance that the Caste Certificate

of Smmari Lal had already been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of the State of

Jharkhand.

65.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of DW.-5, Binod Ram, it is evident that he

has also supported the case of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal on the point of his

permanent resident at Ranchi and asserted that even grand-father of the Respondent no. 1 ie.

Smmari Lal had been brought by British People from the State of Rajasthan to erstwhile State

of Bihar prior to independence.

66.

D.W.-6, Krishna Ram, who is aged about 51 years, has also filed his evidence on

an affidavit stating therein that his father Late Babu Lal had died in the year 1996 while

working in Ranchi Collge and was appointed on compassionate ground on account of the

above fact. He also stated that his ancestors and ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no.

1 had been living at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence and

presently he along with his elder brother are living with all family members in Balmiki

Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi. He was born at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi in the year

1972 and he has good relationship with Smmari Lal. He claimed that relationship between his

family and family members of Smmari Lal is very cordial. He also stated that his ancestors as

well as ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1 were participated in the Indian

Movement. He also claims that his ancestors as well as ancestors of Smmari Lal had also

participated in independence movement and they had participated in procession and their

ancestors were also beaten by British People. He also asserted that his ancestors as well as

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

ancestors of Smmari Lal were made to settle at Balmiki Nagar by British People for the

purpose of cleaning work.

66.

During his cross-examination, he stated that Janki Ram was the father of Smmari

Lal. He also could not file any document with regard to residential proof of Smmari Lal. He

also could give the case number in which during independence movement ancestors of

Smmari Lal was made an accused.

67.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-6, Krishna Ram, it is evident that he

has also supported the case of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal on the point of settlement of

his ancestors as well as settlement of ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1 at

Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence and he also got job on

compassionate ground. Thus, it would appear that even the Ancestors of DW-6 were also

brought from Rajasthan by the British People apart from the ancestors of the Respondent no.

1, Smmari Lal.

68.

D. W. -7 is Tikam Chand Pawar, aged about 67 years and he also filed his

evidence on affidavit by stating therein that he was born at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road,

Ranchi and had retired from the post of Estate Officer from Ranchi Universityin the year

2016. He stated that his ancestors along with ancestors of his Uncle Smmari Lal i.e.

Respondent no. 1 have been living at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to

independence. He stated that Smmari Lal had contested election of KankeVidhan Sabha

Reason on several time and it was never objected by anyone in the name of his Caste. He had

also worked for Smmari Lal from KankeVidhan Sabha Election, which is reserved seat of

Scheduled Caste and their Caste used to support Smmari Lal.

69.

He was cross-examined only on the point of not filing of any document in support

of residential proof of ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1. He admitted that the

Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal was cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

70.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D. W. -7, Tikam Chand Pawar, it is

evident that D. W. -7, Tikam Chand Pawar is the son of D.W.-4, Sajna Ram and he had also

retired from the post of Estate Officer from Ranchi University in the year 2016. He had also

supported the claim of the Respondent no. 1 that their ancestors were brought from Rajasthan

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

to erstwhile State of Bihar by the British People for cleaning work and they were made to

settle at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi.

71.

D. W. -8 is Basant Ram, aged about 64 years. He also filed evidence on an

affidavit by stating therein that his father late Birju Ram came to Ranchi since before

independence and they were working as Sweeper in Ranchi College and retired from there

and they had died in the year 1984. He also stated that his ancestor and ancestor of Smmari

Lal have been living at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi. He also stated that Smmari Lal

had contested the election from Kanke Vidhan Sabha several times and his nomination was

never objected by anyone. He further stated that prior to independence, Habei Campus was

situated in the campus of St. Xavier College, where English People used to reside. He is

fully acquainted with late Mishri Lal Balmiki i.e. the father of Smmari Lal, who was working

in RMCH and he used to reside with his ancestors at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi.

He stated that he also started job in Ranchi University in the Year 1978 and retired in the year

2018 and presently he is getting pension from Punjab Natinal Bank, Ranchi University

Branch.

72.

This witness was cross-examined only on the point of not filing any documentary

evidence in support of the residential proof of ancestors of Smmari Lal at Ranchi prior to

independence. However, he was aware of cancellation of Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal.

73.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D. W. -8, Basant Ram, it is evident that he

has also supported the case of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal on the point of settlement of

his ancestors as well as settlement of ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1 at

Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence and he also got job in Ranchi

University in the Year 1978 and retired in the year 2018.

74.

Thus, it would appear that even ancestors of DW-8 were also brought from

Rajasthan by the British People apart from the ancestors of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal

for cleaning work and they were made to settle at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi.

75.

D.W.-9, Anand Kumar Balmiki, aged about 53 Years, has filed his evidence on an

affidavit by Stating that his ancestors along with the ancestors of Smmari Lal, Respondent

no. 1 have been living at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence. And

his father late Birsa Ram had taken VRS from Punjab National Bank in the year 2000. He

stated that his grand- father, late Mala Ram was nominated Councillor of Ranchi Municipal

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Corporation and who was known as Mala Ram Commissioner. He stated that he as well as

Smmari Lal were studying at Ranchi College and the Respondent no. 1 was General

Secretary of the Student Union. He stated that Smmari Lal had also contested election from

Kanke Vidhan Sabha Constituency several times and he was never objected.

76.

This witness was also cross-examined only on the point of not filing any

documentary evidence in support of the residential proof of ancestors of Smmari Lal at

Ranchi prior to independence. He further stated that he was not aware of cancellation of

Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal. He has denied the suggestion falsely deposing before the

Court in collusion with Smmari Lal.

77.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D. W. -9, Anand Kumar Balmiki, it is

evident that he has also supported the case of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal on the point

of settlement of his ancestors as well as settlement of ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e.

Respondent no. 1 at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence. Thus, even

the ancestors of DW-9 were also brought from Rajasthan by the British People apart from the

ancestors of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal for cleaning work and they were made to

settle at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi.

78.

D.W.-10, Binod Ram, aged about 60 years has filed his evidence on affidavit by

stating therein that his father, late Baiju Ram came to Ranchi prior to independence and was

posted as Sweeper at BIT in its Care Taker Officer prior to 1960. He was a daily wage

labour. He joined in UCO Bank, Mesra Branch, Ranchi in the year 1979 and has retired from

service on 31.05.2022. He further stated that his ancestor and ancestor of Smmari Lal were

brought to Ranchi where his ancestors were settled at BIT Mesra whereas the ancestors of

Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1 had settled at Balmiki Nagar, Kishorganj, Ranchi. He

admitted that the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal is in his relation and contested the election of

Kanke Vidhan Sabha several times and there was no objection with regard to his Caste. He

stated that he is filing the certificate issued by the BIT. He stated that his mother late Kamla

Devi was working as Namkum.

He learnt from his father that he was working in CMPDI and thereafter working in Sainik

Astabal.

79.

This witness was also cross-examined only on the point of not filing any

documentary evidence in support of the residential proof of ancestors of Smmari Lal at

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Ranchi prior to independence. However, he was aware of cancellation of Caste Certificate of

Smmari Lal. Even he has asserted during his cross-examination that the Respondent no. 1 is

related to him and hence, he knew that their ancestors were living at Ranchi since before the

independence.

80.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D. W. -10, Binod Ram, it is evident that

he has also supported the case of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal that his ancestors had

settled at BIT Meshra as well as ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1 had settled at

Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence.

81.

D.W.-11, Parbhati Ram @ Parbhati Ram, aged about 85 years has filed his

evidence on affidavit by stating therein that he had retired after doing job in BIT and

Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal is his relative. He stated that his ancestors and ancestor of

Smmari Lal came to Ranchi before the Independence and their family members were living

at Nevari, Ranchi whereas ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e Respondent no. 1 had been living at

Balmiki Nagar, Ranchi. He started doing job at BIT in the year 1966 and has retired in the

year 2004 and he has filed Caste Certificated issued by the BIT Mesra and issued his

certificate by the BIT Mesra vide Memo No. Ref. Stf (P-03-04 685 C dated 6^th May 2003),

which has been marked as Ext.–A on behalf of the Respondent no. 1. He has further stated

that his Bua Late Bahami Devi wife of Late Banvari Lal was working in Ranchi Municipal

Corporation and his Phupha was working at BIT Mesra and they have been residing at

Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi before 1950.

82.

This witness was also cross-examined only on the point of not filing any

documentary evidence in support of the residential proof of ancestors of Smmari Lal at

Ranchi prior to independence. He stated that he was living at Delhi before 1962, however, his

father did not settle at Ranchi, but he used to visit off and on. He further stated that he shown

ignorance about cancellation of Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee.

83.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-11, Parbhati Ram @ Parbhati Ram,

it is evident that he has also supported the case of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal on the

point of settlement of ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1 at Balmiki Nagar,

Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence. Thus, even ancestors of DW-11 were also

brought from Rajasthan by the British People apart from the ancestors of the Respondent no.

1, Smmari Lal for cleaning work and they were made to settle at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Road, Ranchi and DW-1 is a competent witness to support the case of Respondent no. 1

Smmari Lal.

84.

DW-12 is Bhagi Ram Balmiki, aged about 68 Years filed his evidence on affidavit

by stating therein that his ancestor came to Ranchi since before independence and even the

ancestors of Smmari Lal came since before independence and settled at Balmiki Nagar,

Harmu Road, Ranchi. He worked at Army Headquarter between 1968 to 1970 and thereafter

he worked at Airport and retired from there. He stated that his father late Amrit Ram while

working in CCL Darbhanga House had died in the year 1978. He has proved even the order

issued by Airport Authority of India dated 25.04.2014 marked as Ext.-B. His grand-mother

used to disclose him that his grand-father late Devi Ram used to work at Habsi Campus,

Piska More, Ratu Road, Ranchi from 1945.

85.

During further examination-in-chief, he stated that he was serving in Airport

Authority of India as Sweeper and he had retired from service in the year 2014. He has

proved his retirement letter issued under the signature of Suresh Kumar Mohanti, who was

Junior Executive in Ranchi Airport and the letter is marked as Exhibit-B (with objection).

86.

This witness was also cross-examined only on the point of not filing any

documentary evidence in support of the residential proof of ancestors of Smmari Lal at

Ranchi prior to independence. However, he admitted to be aware of cancellation of Caste

Certificate of Smmari Lal.

87.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of DW-12, Bhagi Ram Balmiki, it is evident

that he has also supported the case of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal on the point of

settlement of his ancestors as well as settlement of ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent

no. 1 at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence. Thus, even ancestors of

DW-12 were also brought from Rajasthan by the British People apart from the ancestors of

the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal for cleaning work and they were made to settle at Balmiki

Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi.

88.

DW-13, Brij Kishore Vijay aged about 62 years, has filed affidavit stating therein

that he was election agent of Smmari Lal, who was one of the candidate of BJP from

Assembly Election Reason of 2019 from Kanke Vidhan Sabha Reason. His ancestors were

the Khatiani Raiyat of State of Jharkhand and they used to tell him that the ancestors of

Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1 were residing as Marwari Bhangi at Balmiki Nagar,

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Harmu Road, Ranchi. He further stated that Smmari Lal had contested the election from

Kanke Reserved Assembly Region Since 1985 as a candidate of various parties and he had

also contested the election from RJD, JMM and also contested with the support of Congress

in the election and prior to this election, no objection was raised by anyone. He further stated

that Late Mishri Lal Balmiki, who was the father of Smmari Lal, Respondent no. 1 had

worked at RMCH, Ranchi since 1960. He further stated that one W. P. (C) No. 6502 of 2019

was filed in Jharkhand High Court with regard to nomination of the Respondent no. 1,

Smmari Lal, which was dismissed. He asserted that Smmari Lal has filed any wrong Caste

Certificate. He further stated that demand has been made for staying the cancellation of Caste

Certificate by wrong manner of Smmari Lal by giving representation before the Hon’ble

Governor by the Jharkhand State BJP on 17.10.2022. He further stated that on 30.11.2021,

Circle Inspector, Bargain Cirle, Ranchi had submitted his report before Circle Officer,

Bargain that during course of local inspection, he learnt that ancestors of Smmari Lal

alongwith other people of Bhangi Caste were brought to Ranchi from Rajasthan since before

Independence. Even the Caste Scrutiny Committee had not made any local inspection with

regard to Caste Certificate of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal in Balmiki Nagar, Harmu

Road, Ranchi and if enquiry is conducted then it will be clear that ancestors of Smmari Lal

are residing in Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi since before the independence. He

further stated that direction was given to enquire about the Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal

by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the Deputy

Commissioner, Ranchi vide letter no. 4518/ga dated 29.11.2021 addressed to the Anchal

Adhikari, Bargain and Circle Officer, Town Anchal to make local inspection, but merely in

ten (10) hours, both Anchal vide Memo No. 746(ii) dated 30.11.2021 had submitted the

report to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi instead of making local inspection. He asserted

that honest enquiry has not been done with regard to the Caste Certificate of the Respondent

no. 1, Smmari Lal.

89.

This witness has proved the letter dated 17.10.2022 addressed to Hon’ble

Governor filed as typed by one S. N. Jha and under the signature of Amar Kumar Bauri

(MLA of Chandankyari), which has been marked as Ext. –C (with objection).

He has further marked the Khatian as X and Khewat as X/1 and Malguzari Receipt as X/2 for

identification.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

90.

During cross-examination, he stated that he admitted for not any document

regarding letter of authorization to work as an Election Agent of Smmari Lal in 2019

Assembly Election. However, he has filed in the Court the Khatiyan of his ancestor, Onkar

Mal Malwari. He has not filed any document regarding residential proof of ancestors of

Smmari Lal since before independence. He admitted that since 1985, Smmari Lal has

contested elections 7 times and won in 2019. He stated that He has not filed the Service book

of father of Smmari Lal, namely, Late Mishri Lal and also his Caste Certificate. He is aware

of cancellation of the Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal by Caste Scrutiny Committee and he

was aware that one Sudhir Kumar Srivastava used to appear on behalf of Smmari Lal before

the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He has not filed any inspection report of the Circle Officer,

Bargain. However, he had seen that the final order of Caste Scrutiny Committee. He stated

that Office of the Deputy Commissioner office, Ranchi has sent its report to Caste Scrutiny

Committee on 30.11.2021.

91.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of DW-13, Brij Kishore Vijay, it is evident

that he was the Election Agent of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal and has supported his case

on the point of contesting the election by Smmari Lal, Respondent no. 1 since 1985 from the

various political party i.e. RJD, JMM and BJP and at that time, no objection was raised. He

also supported the fact that ancestors of Smmari Lal, had settled by the British People at

Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi for cleaning work from Rajasthan to Ranchi. He has

also asserted that proper enquiry has not been done with regard to Caste Certificate of the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal by Anchal Adhikari, Bargain and neither report has been

submitted. This witness, DW.-13 is khataini raiyat of State of Jharkhand and marked the

documents for identification i.e. the Khatian as X and Khewat as X/1 and Malguzari Rasid as

X/2.

Thus, D.W.-13 has also supported the case of the Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal.

92.

DW-14 is Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1. He has also filed evidence on an

affidavit stating therein that he belongs to Bhangi Caste, which is Scheduled Caste. He had

contested the 2019 Assembly Election from Kanke Assembly Reason from Bhartiya Janta

Party (BJP) and has filed his nomination paper alongwith all desired relevant documents for

e.g. Caste Certificate and other documents and he has made self declaration that he belongs

to Scheduled Caste, Bhangi Caste of State of Jharkhand. He has proved his Caste Certificate

marked as Ext.-15, which was enclosed in the writ petition at page no. 36. He further stated

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

that he is permanent resident of Jharkhand as Scheduled Caste Persons and he was born and

brought up in Ranchi. His date of birth is 23.06.1962. He passed his Matriculation

Examination in the year 1979 from Zila School, Ranchi and has passed Graduation in the

year 1983 from the Ranchi University and passed M.A. from Ranchi University in the year

1985. He has proved his Matriculation Certificate, Intermediate Mark Sheet, Graduation

Mark Sheet and M.A Mark Sheet as Exhibits. He further proved the Certificate issued by

NCC, which has been marked as Ext. –D/6. He has further proved the Certificate issued by

the Ranchi Employment Exchange upon his registration on 27.11.1983, which has been

marked as Ext.-D/7. He further stated that the Election –Petitioner, Suresh Kumar Baitha and

two other persons had filed objection before the Returning Officer and which was properly

verified by the Returning Officer and rejected by the Returning Officer after hearing all the

sides. He also stated that he was nominated as Member of Jharkhand Regional Autonomous

Council of Scheduled Caste and he had filed its photocopy because he lost his original

certificate, which has been marked as Ext. –D/8. He further state that he had contested the

election as an independent candidate in the year 1985 and in the year 1990 and 1995 he had

contested election as a candidate of a Janata Dal candidate and in the year 2000 he had

contested election as a candidate of RJD candidate and in the year 2005 and 2009 he had

contested election as a Scheduled Caste candidate of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and at that

time none had raised any objection. He further stated that he was born in Balmimi Nagar

Harmu Ranchi and his father had worked in RMCH from 1965 till his retirement and he has

filed this original certificate, which has been marked as Exhibit- D/9. He further stated that

after some years his father was allotted a quarter in RMCH and they started living in the same

quarter and from there they used to go to the District School for studies and during holidays

he used to go to his aunt Gulabiya Devi's house in Balmiki Nagar. However, his Maternal

Aunt did not come to the RMCH quarter because it was her niece's in-laws' house there. He

further stated that he is Voter of the Kanke Assembly Constituency in the year 2019 and he

also filed the certified copy of the voter list, which has been marked as Exhibit-D/10. He has

been elected by people of the Kanke Assembly constituency and allowed him to serve the

people and he has been legally and validly elected in the Election of the Kanke Assembly

Constituency. He has stated that elder cousin brother Sanjana Ram, DW-4 was given letters

of appreciation by then Minister and he has filed photocopy of the said letter, which has been

marked as Ext.-D/11 as the same was available in his old file and it was handed over by him

by his elder brother Sajana Ram, DW-4. He further stated that the Election- Petitioner has

filed a case on false and fabricated ground and the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal has not

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

given any false declaration that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Bhangi Caste of Jharkhand

State, rather it is true that he is member of Scheduled Caste and he is a permanent resident of

State of Jharkhand. He further asserted that his ancestors were brought since before the

independence to Ranchi by the British People for the purpose of cleaning work. He stated

that the petitioner has falsely stated that the Respondent no.1, Smmari Lal has made any

forgery. He has denied for filing the wrong Caste Certificate.

93.

He has denied the assertion of the Election-Petitioner that his father came to State

of Bihar after getting a job in RMCH, rather as a matter of fact, his grandfather, his brother

and other families were brought to Ranchi by the British People since before independence

for doing cleaning work etc. He denied the assertion that the family members of the

Respondent no. 1 is taking benefit of reservation in both the States. He has not violated any

law in India. He has not violated any provision of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 or

the Constitution of India. He stated that the Election- Petitioner has filed this case out of

political jealousy and the election of the Respondent no. 1 is free from any vices. Hence, the

allegation of the Election Petitioner to cancel the election is baseless and without any reason.

He has further proved the report dated 30.11.2021 submitted by Circle Inspector, Bargain to

Circle Officer, Bargain, Ranchi by which it has been informed that his ancestors were

brought by the British People since before the independence and the report dated 30.11.2021

is marked as Exhibit-19/2.

94.

During cross-examination, he identified his signature on the copy of W.P.(C)

No.1583 of 2022 filed in this Court, which has been marked as Exhibit-14. This witness i.e.

DW-14 admitted his Caste Certificate annexed with the Writ Petition, which has been marked

as Exhibit-15. This witness i.e. DW-14 also identified the copy of the complaint petition filed

by Suresh Baitha and which is annexed as Annexure-3 in the Writ Petition vide W.P.(C)

No.1583 of 2022 and which has been marked as Exhibit-16. This witness i.e. DW-14

admitted that he had received letters from the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which have been

annexed with W.P.(C) No.1583 of

2022 by him and enclosed as Annexure-4 Series and all these letters have been marked as

Exhibits-17 to 17/7 respectively before the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary). This witness i.e. DW-14 identified his reply submitted to

the Caste Scrutiny Committee under his signature and which were enclosed with the W.P.(C)

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

No.1583 of 2022 and all these letters have been marked as Exhibits-18 to 18/70 respectively

before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary).

This witness i.e. DW-14 identified Annexure-6 of the Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.1583

of 2022, which is the final order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. This witness i.e. DW-14

identified the report of the Circle Officer, Bargain, Ranchi addressed to the Deputy

Commissioner, Ranchi and enclosed in W.P.(C) No. 1583 of 2022 by this petitioner and

which have been marked as Exhibits-19 to 19/2 respectively. This witness i.e. DW-14

admitted that his father was employed in RIMS, Ranchi as a temporary employee sometimes

in 1963-64 and was permanently employed in the year 1965. However, he has not filed the

Caste Certificate of his father before this Court. Though he tried to get service book of his

father, but he could not get the same and as such, the same could not be filed. He admitted

that he was married in the year 1982. His wife lives in her natal home in District-Jhunjhunu,

Rajasthan where she works as a Sweeper in Primary Health Centre, Baktiarpura, but he

cannot say in which year his wife joined her service. He stated that he is not aware whether

the order rejecting the objection of Suresh Baitha has been filed in this Court from his side or

not. However, he could not say after how many years of his marriage, his wife got

employment in the State of Rajasthan. He could not remember for filing the Nomination

paper in this case. However, from 1985 till this Assembly election, no one has ever

challenged or objected to his Caste Certificate. He further stated that he has not filed any

documentary evidence regarding residential proof as they were landless belonging to Dalit

community without such certificate. However, he has submitted his papers with respect to

Maternal Uncle and Aunt since before 1950. He has denied to have obtained false Caste

Certificate of Schedule caste and had illegally contested Assembly Election in the year 2019

from the Reserved Constituency of Kanke. He denied for taking the benefit of Caste

Certificate from Jharkhand whereas his wife is also have beneficiary of Caste Certificate in

the State of Jharkhand (it appears that due to typographical error State of Jharkhand instead

of State of Rajasthan), which she got after marriage.

95.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of DW-14, Smmari Lal, it is evident that he

has denied assertion of the petitioner that he is not the resident of Jharkhand and not the

Scheduled Caste of the State of Jharkhand. He has taken the specific plea that his ancestors,

grand-father and several other persons from Rajasthan were brought to Ranchi by the British

People for cleaning works and some of them had settled at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road,

Ranchi whereas some of them had settled at BIT Mesra, Hapsi Colony. He has also asserted

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

that he has filed nomination paper as Scheduled Caste Candidate not only as independent

candidate in the year 1985, but also in the year 1990 and 1995 as a candidate of a Janata Dal

candidate and in the year 2000 as a candidate of RJD candidate and in the year 2005 and

2009 as a Scheduled Caste candidate of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and at that time none had

raised any objection. On the point of filing of residential certificate of his ancestor has been

brought from Rajasthan to Ranchi, he has stated that his ancestors were landless people and

as such he could not get the same. He also stated that he had tried to obtain service book of

his father from RIMS, Ranchi, but he could not succeed. However, he has asserted that

several relatives i.e. Gulabia Devi, DW-3 and Sajna Ram, DW-4 had led their evidence that

they have been brought from Rajasthan to Ranchi by the British People for doing cleaning

work.

He has filed his Matriculation Certificate, Intermediate Mark Sheet, Graduation

Mark Sheet and M.A Mark Sheet, which have been marked as Exhibit-D/2, D/3, D/4 and D/5

resepectively.

96.

DW-15 is Damodar Ram aged about 65 Years and who has filed his evidence on

affidavit by stating therein that he has retired from Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Ranchi in

the year 2017 and he was employed in the said Bank on Compassionate Ground on account

of death of his father. He stated that his grand-father late Pokhan Ram had come along with

ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1 and settled at Harmu Road, Ranchi. He stated

that Smmari Lal is his relative and father of Smmari Lal was working in RMCH whereas his

father was working in Coal Server Depot and they alongwith their respective family members

used to reside at Balmiki Nagar. His grand-father was working in the house of Rai Bahadue

Budhia and they participated in the freedom movement with full zeal and enthusiasm and

their elders used to tell him that the Britishers used to hang the Freedom Fighters. He stated

that Smmari Lal has contested seven (7) elections and no one has raised objections.

97.

During his cross-examination, he has shown ignorance about cancellation of Caste

Certificate of Smmari Lal by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

98.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of DW-15, Damodar Ram, it is evident that

he has supported the case of Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal on the point of settlement of his

ancestors as well as settlement of ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1 at Balmiki

Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

99.

DW-15 ‘A’ is Manoj Kumar Ranjan, who is LRDC, Ramgarh, who was examined

before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary).

He stated during his evidence that he was Returning Officer in 2019 Jharkhand Assembly

Election at 65 Kanke Constituency and he had accepted the Nomination Paper of Smmari Lal

i.e. the Respondent no. 1. He had examined the Caste Certificate of the Respondent No. 1,

Smmari Lal as per the ‘Handbook’ of Returning Officer and had found it to be valid. Sri

Suresh Kumar Baitha was also a candidate in the Assembly Election and he had raised

objection on the nomination of Smmari Lal. He forwarded the objection to Smmari Lal and

asked him to submit his reply by 3 PM on the same day. After receiving reply and hearing

both the parties, in the presence of their learned counsels and also after verifying the Caste

Certificate from the Issuing Authority, he had overruled the objection and accepted the

nomination paper of Smmari Lal.

100.

During cross-examination, he stated that the notice was issued upon him in this

case. However, he has not filed any document with regard to the electoral process in this

case.

101.

On being asked in the question and answer form, as to whether he had any order or

permission from the Election Commissioner or this Court to have the Original nomination

paper ? He answered that the Original nomination papers are kept with the Returning Officer

and at present he is posted at Ramgarh. He stated that after he received the notice for

appearing as the Witness in this case, he obtained this document from D.C.L.R., Ranchi. He

got this paper verbally. He could not state the time at which Suresh Baitha had raised

objection on the day of nomination. However, he stated that during the scrutiny of the

nomination paper, he had sought the verification of the Caste Certificate from Circle Office,

Sadar, Ranchi who was the Issuing Officer. The Peon had taken the Caste Certificate for

verification and he received the verification report before 3 PM. He stated that he can file the

verification report before this Court.

During further cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember whether any

order sheet had been maintained by him with regard to electoral process. He denied the

suggestion for working in collusion with Smmari Lal and he has denied for not verified the

Caste Certificate of Smmari Lal, and in order to favour him and he has not filed the written

statement.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

102.

Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of DW-15 ‘A’ i.e. Manoj Kumar Ranjan

before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary),

it is evident that he was the Returning Officer of 65-Kanke (Scheduled Castes) Constituent

Assembly and though he was posted as LRDC, Ramgarh, but he has produced the Original

Nomination Paper of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal from the DCLR, Ranchi and he got

this paper verbally. Although, copy of original nomination paper were filed before the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary), but witness

was confronted on the point of time of scrutiny of nomination paper and also on the point of

verification of the Caste Certificate from the Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi and he admitted

that the Peon had taken the Caste Certificate for verification and he received the verification

report before 3.00 PM.

103.

Thus, the evidence of DW-15 “A” appears to be cryptic on the point of sending the

Caste Certificate to the Issuing Officer through Peon for obtaining report, but he had not

concealed anything before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

104.

DW.-16 is Jyoti Kumar Singh, Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi

Municipal Corporation and who stated during evidence that he does not have this information

that Gulabia Devi was in the employment of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. He could not say

whether the service book of Class IV employees is maintained by those, who have retired

form service and which is kept in Municipal Corporation office or not. This information can

be given only on verification of office records.

105.

During cross-examination, he could not say whether any written information had

been given regarding the missing of the service book of Gulabia Devi.

Evidence of the DW-16 was recorded before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary) on the point of employment of Gulabia

Devi, DW-3, whose reply was evasive and he had not produced any document before the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court, although photocopy of the service book was filed by the

Gulabia and DW-3, Gulabia Devi has claimed that she was working Ranchi Municipal

Corporation since 1950 as Sweeper till her retirement.

106.

D.W.-17 is Mukund Chandra Mehta, Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi, who

has been examined before this Court.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

He has stated that he had joined Ranchi University on 11th November, 2020 and

all the documents of the working employees are being kept in the College. On being shown

the Photocopy of service book of Sajna Ram (DW-4), Biology Department, Ranchi College,

Ranchi, erstwhile employee of Ranchi University, the Witness admits that it is Service Book

in 8 sheets, which has been marked for identification as ‘Y’ and the photocopy of application

for pension other than family pension and for gratuity which is in one sheet, which has been

marked for identification as ‘Y/1’.

107.

Issue No. IV :-

This relates to as to whether the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste in

relation to State of Jharkhand ? It is evident from the evidence of P.W.-1, Suresh Kumar

Baitha, i.e. the Election- Petitioner and P. W.-2, Gulzar Ahmad that the petiotner- Suresh

Kumar Baitha is member of Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand as well as their

ancestors were also Scheduled Caste in the erstwhile State of Bihar and they are the

Khatiyani Raiyat, but the same has not been rebutted by the Respondent No. 1.

Ext. -9 is the certified copy of the nomination of Election Petitioner in (Format –

‘Ka”), which also contains the Caste Certificate of the petitioner issued by the Circle Officer,

Bargain, which reveals that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste. This Certificate

has not been challenged by the Respondents including respondent no. 1. Thus, Issue No. IV

is also decided in favour of the petitioner.

108.

Issue No. IX:- From the evidence of PW.- 1 and PW-2, it is evident that they have

asserted about taking benefits in the State of Rajasthan by the wife of the Respondent No. 1,

Smmari Lal as Scheduled Caste and the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has also taken the

benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand.

Even DW-14, Smmari Lal has admitted that his wife is Grade-IV employee in the

State of Rajasthan and employed in Primary Health Centre at Bharatpur district as Grade-IV

employee. The Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal had contested the Jharkhand Assembly

Election at 65 Kanke Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste members and as such it is

evident that both i.e. the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal and his wife namely Anita Jedia have

taken the benefits as Scheduled Caste persons both in the State of Jharkhand as well as in the

State of Rajasthan.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

However, neither the petitioner nor the respondent no. 1 have brought any

evidence on record to show that wife of the respondent no. 1 has secured employment in the

State of Rajasthan after marrying with the Respondent no. 1. However, it is onus upon the

petitioner to prove that the wife of the respondent no. 1 has secured employment in the State

of Rajasthan, after she has been married with the Respondent No. 1. However, the petitioner

has failed to prove the same as neither the Election Petitioner while examined as P.W.-1,

Suresh Kumar Baitha not his Election Agent P.W.-2 namely Gulzar Ahmad have stated that

the wife of the respondent no. 1 had been appointed in the State of Rajasthan after marrying

with the respondent no. 1. Hence, issue no. IX is decided against the petitioner.

109.

Issue No. V and XII :-

These issues are interlinked with each other and it relates to obtaining Caste

Certificate by the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal fraudently and also as to whether he is by

Caste Bhangi and a member of Scheduled Caste or not ?

110.

It has been pleaded in the plaint of the Election –Petitioner that father of the

Respondent no. 1 and their ancestors originally belonged to the State of Rajasthan and the

Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal is permanent resident of Rajasthan and he is not a permanent

resident of Jharkhand. Hence Caste Certificate could not be issued to such persons in light of

the letters of the Ministry of Home, Government of India and Circular of the Department of

Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand.

In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.-1 and has

stated during his evidence that the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal is not Scheduled Caste of

the State of Jharkhand and as such, he is not entitled to contest the election from 65 Kanke

Constitut Assembly as his father is originally resident of Rajasthan and had come to Rajendra

Medical College and Hospital and thereafter the family of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal

migrated to erstwhile State of Bihar. The Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has obtained Caste

Certificate wrongly in violation of Letter No.14/जा०Ǔन०-03-13/2016 का० 6763 कजमक 05-08-

2016 (marked as Exhibit – 11) and Letter No.7/भा.ͪव.स. 016-16/04 का-3557 dated 18.10.2005

(marked as Exhibit – 12 respectively).

However, during cross-examination, P.W.-1, Suresh Kumar Baitha admitted at

Para- 14 to 20 that he had not raised any objection in respect of the Caste of the Respondent

no. 1, Smmari Lal at the time of preparation of Voter list in 2019 Election. He further

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

asserted that the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal is a member of Scheduled Caste from the

State of Rajasthan, but he does not come in the category in the State of Jharkhand. However,

he asserted in para-18 to 20 that father of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent No. 1 has migrated

from Rajasthan during the time of united Bihar, but he does not know in which year he had

migrated from there.

111.

P.W.-2, Gulzar Ahmad has not stated any fact against the Respodnent No. 1

during his evidence by filing affidavit with regard to obtaining the Caste Certificate

fraudently in violation of Letter No. 14/जा०Ǔन०-03-13/2016 का० 6763 कजमक 05-08-2016

marked as Exhibit – 11 and Letter No.7/भा.ͪव.स. 016-16/04 का-3557 dated 18.10.2005

marked as Exhibit – 12 respectively.

Thus, P.W.-2, Gulzar Ahmad has not supported the claim of P.W.-1 i.e. the petitioner on the

point of obtaining false Caste Certificate of Scheduled Caste by the Respondent no. 1

fraudently.

112.

Exhibit – 12 is the Letter dated 18.10.2005 which relates to guidelines for issuance

of Caste Certificate and it has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of

Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand along with list of

Caste to all the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries/All the Head of Departments/All Divisional

Commissioners/All Deputy Commissioners by which it has been informed by pointing out

towards the Department Letter No. 2216 dated 12.07.2005 that candidate of Reserved

Category from other States, who are residing in this State, Government of Home Department

Vide Letter No. BC/16014/1/82 S.C. and B.C.D-I dated 18.11.1982 are facing difficulties and

had issued direction for issuance of Caste Certificate. [It has been informed that Government

of Home Department has substituted the said Letter vide Letter No. BC/16014/1/82 S.C. and

B.C.D-I dated 22.02.1985 by superseding the said Letter No. BC/16014/1/82 S.C. and

B.C.D-I dated 18.11.1982.] Hence the Caste Certificate should be issued in light of the

direction given by the Ministry of Home vide Letter No. BC/16014/1/82 S.C. and B.C.D-I

dated 22.02.1985 and thus Letter No. 2216 dated 12.07.2005 be modified accordingly.

113.

The letter dated 18.11.1982 is enclosed as Annexure- SA/4. Ext.-5 [which is

Supplementary Affidavit dated 16.04.2022filed on behalf of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent

No. 1 in W. P (C) No. 1583 of 2022].

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

In this above letter Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih

Mantralaya addressed to all the Chief Secretaries to all State Governments/Union Territory

Administrations by which it has been informed that on the representation on those persons

belonging to SC/ST, who have migrated from one State to another for the purpose of

employment, education, etc. experience great difficulty in obtaining Caste/Tribe Certificate

from the State from which they have migrated. In order to remove this difficulty, it has been

decided in modification of the instructions issued in letter No. BC-12025/2/76-SCT I, dated

22.03.1977 and letter No. BC- 12025/11/79-SC & BCD IV IV, dated 29.03.1982 that the

prescribed authority of a State Government/Union Territory Administration may issue the

Scheduled Caste/Tribe certificate to a person who has migrated from another State, on the

production of the genuine certificate issued to his father/mother by the prescribed authority of

the State of the father's/mother's origin except where the prescribed authority feels that

detailed enquiry is necessary through the State of origin before issue of the certificate. It has

also been directed that the certificate will be issued irrespective of whether the Caste/Tribe in

question is scheduled or not in relation to the State/Union Territory to which the person has

migrated. This facility does not alter the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes status of the

person in relation to the one or the other State.

Therefore, letter dated 18.11.1982 prescribes that the Scheduled Caste Certificate

to such persons can be issued by the Competent Authority, who have migrated from other

State and this facility does not alter the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes status of the

person in relation to the one or the other State.

114. Letter No. BC/16014/1/82 S.C. & B.C.D-I dated 22.02.1985 marked as Ext-/18/67

issued by Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya

under the Signature of Joint Secretary to all the Chief Secretaries to all State

Governments/Union Territory Administrations by which it was clarified that Scheduled

Caste/ Tribe persons, who has migrated from the State of Origin to some other State for the

purpose of seeking education, employment etc. will be deemed to be Scheduled Caste/ Tribe

of the State of his origin and will be entitled to derive benefits from the State of Origin and

not from the State to which he has migrated. It was also prescribed that this letter dated

22.02.1985 substitutes the Ministry’s letter of even number dated 18.11.1982.

115.

Thus, vide Ext.-12 i.e. Circular dated 18.10.2005 prescribes that the Authority

should issue the Caste Certificate to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe to such persons

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

only on production of genuine certificate issued to his father by the prescribed Authority of

the State of father origin.

However, in the present case, the Caste Certificate has been issued to the

Respondent no. 1 in the year 2009 or as per the Circular dated 18.10.2005.

116.

Ext.-11 is the Circular dated 05.08.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel

Administrative, Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand by which it has been

clarified to all the Deputy Commissioners of Jharkhand on the point of issuance of Caste

Certificate. It was clarified as follows:-

(i)

For the purpose of admission, educational institution and reservation in employment.

Facilities available only to Original People of the State as their Caste is notified/classified in

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Extremely Backward Classes, Schedule-1 and Backward

Classes, Schedule-II (united Bihar Government Letter No. 70 dated 11.06.1996 and letter no.

5448 dated 12.09.2011).

(ii)

Letter No. BC/16014/1/82 S.C. & B.C.D.-I dated 22.02.1985 issued by the Ministry

of Home, Government of India that if some persons settles from another State for the purpose

of taking education and obtaining employment, then it does not mean that they will be

entitled to reservation in the said State. Such person will be come under the Migratory

Category and they will be entitled to reservation from the Original State. However, such

person will be entitled to issuance of Caste Certificate by Competent Officer on production of

Caste Certificate of his father. However, the benefits of the reservation is not to be extended

to the State of Jharkhand to such persons of other State.

(iii)

All person will not be automatically entitled to reservation in the definition of local

people of Jharkhand.

However, it was further clarified as follows:-

“(i)

Caste Certificate should be issued on the basis of records of Land Revenue/

Panchayat/ Nagar Panchayat /Municipal Corporation/Registration Documents.

(ii)

if no records is produced in support of his claim by applicant, then the Competent

Authority in light of the Circular dated 28.01.2016 can determine the Caste of such person as

per the procedure and the Competent Officer can issue Caste Certificate on being his

satisfaction.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(iii)

Unless they are not satisfied that the applicant or his ancestors are actually residing

as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe as per the Constitution (SC/ST) Order, 1950 are residing

as permanent resident or as Most Backward Classes-I and Backward Classes- from the Year

1978 permanently till then Caste Certificate cannot be issued.

117. It further transpires that State of Jharkhand has also issued Circular/letter dated

05.08.2016 regarding issuance of Caste Certificate. Clause –II and Clause-III of the said

letter dated 05.08.2016 as follows:-

"Clause-II यǑद आवेदक कȧ जाǓत के सà बÛ ध मɅ ͩकये गये दावे के समथ[न मɅ कोई अͧभलेख

Ĥè तुत नहȣं ͩकया जाय तो ͪवभागीय पğांक-1853, Ǒदनांक-25.02.2015 मɅ ͪवǑहत ĤͩĐया अपनाकर

उस å यिÈत के जाǓत का Ǔनधा[ रण ͩकया जा सकता है और स¢म पदाͬधकारȣ अपनी संतुिçट के

आधार पर जाǓत Ĥमाण पğ Ǔनग[त कर सकते है।

Clause-III जब तक यह संतुिçट नहȣं हो ͩक आवेदक या उनके पूव[ज वाè तव मɅ इस राÏ य मɅ

अनुसूͬचत जाǓत/अनुसूͬचत जनजाǓत के मामले मɅ संͪवधान (अनुसूͬचत जाǓत/अनुसूͬचत जनजाǓत)

आदेश, 1950 के समय मɅ è थायी Ǿप से Ǔनवास करते आ रहे हɇ या अ× यÛ त ͪपछड़ा वग[ (1) और

ͪपछड़ा वग[ के मामले मɅ वष[ 1978 से è थाई Ǿप से Ǔनवास कर रहे हɇ, तब तक जाǓत Ĥमाण पğ

Ǔनग[त नहȣं ͩकया जाये।"

118.

Therefore, circular dated 05.08.2016 prescribes that the certificate of such person of

SC/ST/MBC can be issued if the applicant or his ancestors are residing on permanent basis

atleast since 1978 and in the present case, it is asserted by the petitioner that his grand-father

and father of the respondent no. 1 were the residents of Rajasthan, but father of the petitioner

was working in RMCH from the year 1965 and he retired from RIMS.

119.

It would appear that the father of the Respondent no. 1 was treated as Scheduled

Caste in the erstwhile State of Bihar while he was serving in Ranchi.

120.

It is evident from the evidence of i.e. D.W.-1 Dilip Ram, D.W.-2 Jugal Ram,

D.W.-3 Gulabiya Devi, D.W.-4 Sajna Ram, D.W.-5 Binod Ram, S/o Bannu Ram, D.W.-6

Krishna Ram, D.W.-7 Tikam Chand Pawar, D.W.-8 Basant Ram, D.W.-9 Anand Kumar

Balmiki, D.W.-10 Binod Ram, S/o Baiju Ram, D.W.-11 Parbhati Ram, D.W.-12 Bhagi Ram,

DW-13, Brij Kishore Vijay and DW-14, Smmari Lal that the ancestors of the Respondent no.

1 were living in Ranchi much before the independence. Even DW-3, Gulabia Devi and DW-

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

4, Sajna Ram have stated that they were also working in Ranchi Municipal Corporation and

they had retired from Municipal Corporation as Scheduled Caste.

Thus, provisions of Circular dated 05.08.2016 complied to the extent that

ancestors of the respondent no. 1 are living in Ranchi much before the year 1978 i.e. Circular

dated 05.08.2016, Ext.-11 and Circular dated 18.10.2005, Ext.-12. Even Circular dated

18.10.2005, Ext.-12 did not bar for issuance of Caste Certificate to the Respondent No. 1,

Smmari Lal.

121.

P.W. -1 is Suresh Kumar Baitha i.e. the Election Petitioner himself, who had

emphatically stated that the father of Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal came from Rajasthan for

the purpose of employment and they are not the resident and Scheduled Caste of Original

State of Bihar as their ancestors belong to State of Rajasthan.

Even this fact has also been admitted by DW-14, Smmari Lal that his ancestors

had come from Rajasthan, but they were brought by the British People since before the

independence of India. Thus, on this aspect there is admission on the part of the Respondent

No. 1, Smmari Lal that his ancestors had arrived from the State of Rajasthan.

Thus, the real identity of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal is not in dispute.

However, the question remains as to whether the ancestors of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari

Lal can be treated as Scheduled Caste or not for the State of Bihar, although the Respondent

No. 1, Smmari Lal has been born in the erstwhile State of Bihar in Ranchi District (after

bifurcation Ranchi District falls in the State of Jharkhand).

Thus, not only the father of the Respondent no. 1, but also the other relative of the

Respondent no. 1 i.e. DW-3, Gulabia Devi and DW-4, Sajna Ram were recognized as

Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand and also in the erstwhile State of Bihar.

122.

Therefore, this Court finds that there is no illegality in issuance of Caste

Certificate to the respondent no. 1 and there is nothing on record to show that the Authority

had raised objection on finding the respondent no. 1 as Scheduled Caste member. The

petitioner has not led any evidence that any Authority has raised any objection, when the

Caste Certificate of the Respondent No. 1 was issued by the Circle Officer, Bargain. The

petitioner i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 have failed to prove any fraud committed by the respondent

no. 1 at the time of issuance of Caste Certificate.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

123.

From perusal of Annexure-12 of Election Petition, which is letter dated

30.11.2021 marked as Ext. -18/70, it appears that Cirle Inspector, Bargain, Ranchi has sent

letter to Anchal Adhikari, Bargain, Ranchi by informing him that he made local inspection as

per the order and during course of local inspection, local Bhangi (Valmiki) Caste People

informed that the ancestors of Smmari Lal as well as people of other Bhangi Caste had been

brought by British People from the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of cleaning work.

However, they could not produced any written document. In support of his evidence they

could inform from their ancestors have come from the State of Rajasthan. Hence, it is evident

that Sri Smmari Lal as well as his family are originally from the State of Rajasthan and they

have settled her for the purpose of livelihood.

Neither PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that any person or any Authority had raised

any objection with regard to the Caste Certificate of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal when

it was issued in the year 2009. No evidence has been brought on record by the Election

Petitioner during pleadings and during his evidence as PW-1 and also during evidence of

PW-2 that the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal had played any fraud on the concerned

Authority before issuance of certificate of Scheduled Caste in his name.

Thus, this Court finds that there was no violation at the time issuance of Caste

Certificate to the Respondent no. 1.

Thus Issue Nos. V and XII are decided in favour of the Respondent no. 1 and

against the petitioner.

Issue Nos VII, VIII and XI :-

124.

These issues are being tried together as they are interlinked to each other and its

result will dispose of main case also.

125.

PW-I i.e. the petitioner, Suresh Kumar Baitha, during his evidence has stated that

the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal is originally resident of Rajasthan and his father had been

given job in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi and due to which the family of

the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal migrated to erstwhile State of Bihar hence the Respondent

No. 1, Smmari Lal is not a permanent resident of Jharkhand.

During cross-examination, he stated that the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal

belongs to Bharathpur, Rajasthan. However, he again says on his own that he cannot say as to

from which town of Rajasthan the Respondent no. 1 had arrived. He further stated that the

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal is a member of Scheduled Caste from the State of

Rajasthan. However, he also admitted that father of Smmari Lal had migrated from

Rajasthan during the time of United Bihar, but he does not know in which year, he had

migrated from there. Thus the petitioner is not able to say as to from District of Rajasthan

the ancestors of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal

migrated to erstwhile State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

He does not remember the entire list of Scheduled Caste of 1950 and he is not able

to say as to whether in that list, the Caste of Smmari Lal has figured or not.

He merely stated that late Misri Lal Balmiki, who was the father of the

Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal had come to Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS)

for the purpose of job in the year 1965 from the State of Rajasthan and his migration was for

the purpose of job. He also stated that the family of Smmari Lal is still taking benefit of

Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan and his wife is employed at Primary Health Centre

at Bharatpur, Rajasthan as a member of Scheduled Caste.

During cross-examination, he stated that father of Smmari Lal had come to Ranchi

in the year 1965, but he has no personal knowledge of it. He has also not aware that as to

whether the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal is taking any benefit of his reservation in the

State of Rajasthan.

126.

Thus, PW.-1, Suresh Kumar Baitha has also merely stated that the father of

Smmari Lal had come to Ranchi from Rajasthan in the year 1965. Therefore, it is evident that

both P.W.-1, Suresh Kumar Baitha i.e. the Petitioner and PW.-2, Gulzar Ahmad have merely

stated that father of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal had come to Ranchi (erstwhile State

of Bihar) from Rajasthan and they could not say even the name of district of Rajasthan. PW.-

1, Suresh Kumar Baitha is silent as to from which district of Rajasthan father of Smmari Lal

has come and even PW.-2, Gulzar Ahmad is also not sure of the real identity of the

Respondent No. 1,Smmari Lal regard his ancestors from the State of Rajasthan, if any.

127.

It has been held in the case of Tomaso Bruno and Another Versus State of Uttar

Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178 that the principle underlying Section 106 of the

Evidence Act is that the burden to establish those facts, which are within his personal

knowledge is cast on the person concerned, and if he fails to establish or explain those facts,

an adverse inference may be drawn against him.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

128.

So far as the documentary evidence is concerned the petitioner in support of his

case has got Exhibited the several documents, which have been mentioned earlier.

Ext.16 is the complaint petition filed by the petitioner Suresh Kumar Baitha

annexed with the W. P. (C) No. 1583 of 2022.

Ext.-17 to 17/7 respectively is the letters dated 06.01.2021, 15.03.2021,

19.07.2021, 07.09.2021, received from Caste Scrutiny Committee.

Ext.-18 to 18/2, respectively is the reply of Summari Lal, the Respondent No. 1 to

Member Secretary, Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 31.03.2024, 18.08.2021 and 20.07.2021

respectively.

Ext. -18/9 to 18/18 is the Gazette Notification dated 10.08.1950 with regard to

Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

Ext. -18/19 to 18/63 is the another Gazette Notification dated 28.10.1956 with

regard to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification)

Order, 1956.

Ext.-18/64 to 18/66 are the Notification dated 22.03.1977 issued by the

Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

Ext. -18/67 to 18/68 is the letter dated 22.02.1985 issued by the Government of

India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya

129.

Although, Ext. -18/9 to 18/18 is the Gazette Notification dated 11.08.1950, which

was issued after the presidential order made by the Hon’ble President of India by which the

order has been made by the Hon’ble President with regard to Constitution (Scheduled Castes)

Order, 1950 and it has been clarified that subject to provisions of this order the Caste, Races

or Tribes or Groups within Castes or Tribes is specified in Part-I to XVI of Schedule to this

order shall in relation to the State to which those part respectively relates be deemed to be the

Scheduled Caste so far as regard members as they are residents in the localities specified in

relation to them in those parts of that schedule.

130.

Ext. -18/10 is the part of this Gazette Notification dated 10.08.1950 and Part-II of

notification reveals that altogether 21 Castes have been shown as Scheduled Castes.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

131.

Ext. -18/9 is the Gazette Notification dated 10.08.1950 issued by the Government

of India by the order of President of India has notified the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)

Order, 1950 by which list of Caste have been included as Scheduled Castes in different States

of the Country and which also includes the Scheduled Caste of the State of Bihar in Part-II of

the Schedule, is quoted hereunder:-

PART-II-BIHAR

Bauri

Bantar

Bhogta

Chamar

Chaupal

Dhobi

Dom

Dusadh, including Dhari or

Ghasi

10. Halalkhor

11. Hari, including Mehtar

12. Kanjar

13. Kurariar

14. Lalbegi

15. Mochi

16. Musahar

17. Nat

18. Pan

19. Pasi

20. Rajwar

21. Turi

2. In Patna and Tirhut divisions, and the districts of Monghyr Bhagalpur, Purnea

and Palamau:-

Bhumij

3. In Patna, Shahabad. Gaya and Palamau districts:- Bhuiya

4. In Shahabad district:- Dabgar

Which has been marked as Ext.-18/10 before the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court.

The Caste of the Respondent no. 1 is at serial no. 11 is shown in the erstwhile

State of Bihar as Scheduled Caste whereas the Caste of the Election-Petitioner is at serial no.

6 as Scheduled Caste.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Serial No. 6 shows ‘ Dhobi’ i.e. Caste of the Election- Petitioner whereas the

Serial no. 7 denotes Caste ‘Dom’ whereas serial no. 21 denotes the Caste “Hari including

Mehtar”. The Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has claimed to be the Caste of Mehtar.

132.

Ext. -18/17 is the part of the Gazette Notification dated 10.08.1950 by which it

reveals that altogether 44 category of Castes is shown as member of Scheduled Castes in

Rajasthan. Serial No. 17 shows Dome whereas Serial No. 32 shows the Caste Mehtar and

serial no. 44 shows the Caste Valmiki. Later on this notification was further modified and

extended by another Gazette of India Extraordinary Notification dated 29.10.1956 by which

the Hon’ble President has issued order for THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND

SCHEDULED TRIBES LISTS (MODIFICATION) ORDER, 1956, which is in total 45

sheets. However, the office of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Gautam Kumar Choudhary) had marked each page of notification as separate Exhibits i.e.

Ext.- 18/19 to 18/63 respectively page wise.

133.

It further reveals from Ext.-18/17, which includes the name of lists of Scheduled

Caste of the States of Rajasthan as per the averment of the Election-Petitioner the Respondent

no. 1 Caste is mentioned at Serial No. 10 as Bhangi or at Serial at No. 19 as Garancha

Mehtar. Part-XIV-Rajasthan is as follows:

Throughout the State:-

Adi Dharmi

Aheri

Badi

Bagri

Bajgar

Bansphor

Bargi

Bawaria

Bhand

10 Bhangi

Kapadia Sansi

24 Khangar

25 Khatka

26 Kooch Band

27 Koria

28 Kunjar

29 Madari (Bazigar)

30 Majhabi

31 Mehar

32 Mehtar

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Bidakia

12 Chamar

13 Chura

14 Dabgar

15 Dhankia

16 Dheda

17 Dome

18 Gandia

19 Garancha Mehtar

20 Godbi

21 Jatia

22 Kalbelia

Mochi

34 Nut

35 Pasi

36 Raigar

37 Ramdasia

38 Rawal

39 Sarbhangi

40 Singiwala

41 Sansi

42 Thori

43 Tirgar

44 Valmiki

134.

However, later on the said Gazette of India was modified by amending/modifying

the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 to the extent and as is specified in Schedule-

I and it reveals from Ext.-18/22, which is shown number of Scheduled Castes in the erstwhile

State of Bihar in Part-III. However, Scheduled Castes were amended in the State of Rajasthan

at Par-II of the said Gazette of India notification by incorporating several other Castes in

the various districts of Rajasthan were added in various districts, which is evident from Ext.-

18/37 to 18/39 respectively.

135.

Ext.-18/22 is Part-II of the said Notification dated 28.10.1956 (i.e. Ext. -18/19),

which reveals the member of Scheduled Caste in the State of Bihar and it shows that

altogether 21 different members of Scheduled Castes have been identified as Scheduled

Castes. The remarkable fact in this Gazette Notification dated 28.10.1956 is concerned that

there is no change in the specific members and members of Scheduled Castes of the State of

Bihar (it has remained the same as published in the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order,

1950 (i.e. Ext. 18/9) and it has remained the same whereas certain members of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been modified by the order of Hon’ble President of India.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

136.

Part-11 of the said Notification dated 28.10.1956 reveals that the members of

Scheduled Castes in Rajasthan on denotes/shown altogether 23 Castes have been identified as

Scheduled Caste and there are certain changes in the some districts in the State of Rajasthan.

137.

Ext. -18/64 is the letter no. BC-12025/2/76-SCT (I) dated 22.03.1977 issued by

the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to all the Chief Secretaries to All State

Governments/Union Territory

Administrations clarifying the issue of

Scheduled

Cast/Scheduled Tribe certificates that a person, who is temporarily away from his permanent

place of a above at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order applicable in his case,

say for example to earn a living or seek education etc. can also be regarded as Scheduled

Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, if his Caste/Tribe has been specified in that

order in relation to his State/U.T. But he cannot be treated as such in relation to the place of

his temporary residence notwithstanding the fact that the name of his caste/tribe has been

scheduled in respect of that area in any Presidential Order.

138.

Therefore, for the first time, Government of India made clarification that if a

person is temporarily away from his original State for earning his livelihood for the purpose

of education, then he will not be treated as a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in

the another State. For this purpose, the Government of India has made special provisions in

the prescribed Performa for issuance of such certificate so that certificates may be issued to

the deserving persons and it was observed that proper verification based primarily on revenue

records and if need be, through reliable enquiries, is made before such certificates are issued.

Thus, power has been vested to the Revenue Authority before issuing such certificate.

However, it was also cautioned by the Government of India to the Authorises not to issue

Caste Certificate merely on the basis of certificate issued by MPs, MLAs, Gazetted Officers

etc.

Thus, Ext.-18/63 clearly shows that

the

concept

of permanent residence

is of primary consideration.

139.

Apart from this, it was also clarified that the concept of ‘residence’ connotes the

permanent residence of persons on the date of notification of Presidential Order scheduling

his caste/tribe in relation to that locality. Therefore, much emphasis has been given on the

point of permanent residence of person concern for issuing the Caste Certificate, but not on

the basis of temporarily residence of a person, who may be away for the livelihood or for the

purpose of education on the date of issuance of Presidential Order i.e. the Constitution

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 as Ext.-18/9 and the Constitution (Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe) modification order dated 29.10.1956, Ext. -18/19.

140.

It further transpires that the above notification was further clarified by

Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs No. BC- 12025/2/76-SCT(I), dated

22.03.1977, which has been marked as Ext.-18/64 by which the concept of term “residence”

was clarified by the Government of India by referring to all the Chief Secretaries to All State

Governments/Union Territory Administrations with regard to issue of Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe Certificates.

141.

This letter is part of Annexure-9 of this Election Petition and which has been

clarified as follows:-

“Clause-2:- As required under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the President has, with

respect to every State and Union Territory and where it is State after consultation with the

Governor of the concerned State, issued orders notifying various Castes and Tribes as Scheduled

Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory from time to time. The inter-state area

restrictions have been deliberately imposed so that the people belonging to the specific

community residing in a specific area, which has been assessed to qualify for the Scheduled

Castes or Scheduled Tribes status, only benefit from the facilities provided for them. Since the

people belonging to the same caste but residing in different State/Union Territories may not

necessarily suffer form the same disabilities, it is possible that two persons belonging to the same

caste but residing in different State/U.Ts may not both be treated to belong to Scheduled

Caste/Tribes or vice versa. Thus the residence of a particular person in a particular locality

assumes a special significance. This residence has not been understood in the literal or ordinary

sense of the word. On the other hand it connotes the permanent residence of a person on the date

of the notification of the Presidential Order scheduling his caste/tribes in relation to that locality.

Thus a person who is temporarily away from his permanent place of a abode at the time of the

notification of the Presidential Order applicable in his case, say for example to earn a living or

seek education etc. can also be regarded as Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, as the

case may be, if his caste/tribe has been specified in that order in relation to his State/U.T. But he

cannot be treated as such in relation to the place of his temporary residence notwithstanding the

fact that the name of his caste/tribe has been scheduled in respect of that area in any Presidential

Order.

Clause-3:- It is to ensure the veracity of this permanent residence of a person and that of the

caste/tribe to which he claims to belong that the Government of India has made a special

provision in the proforma prescribed for the issue of such certificate. In order that the certificates

are issued to the deserving persons it is necessary that proper verification based primarily on

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

revenue records and if need be, through reliable enquiries, is made before such certificates are

issued.”

142.

It further transpires that vide letter dated 22.02.1985 issued by Joint Secretary,

Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya, which is

marked as 18/67 and 18/68 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it has been clarified at

Clause-2 of the said letter as follows:-

“Clause-2:- It is also clarified that a Scheduled Caste/ tribe persons who has migrated from the

State of origin to some other State for the purpose of seeking education, employment, etc. will be

deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/ tribe of the State of his origin and will be entitled to derive

benefits from the State of origin and not from the State to which he has migrated.”

143.

Therefore, moot question arises as to whether the person(s), who may be residents

from the other States, who is the member of the Scheduled Caste of Original State, can be

treated as Scheduled Caste of the State of Jharkhand prior to issuance of Gazette Notification

dated 10.08.1950, (Ext-.18/09), to the migrated State and what will be the fate of successor or

legal heirs of the Original Migrants person.

144.

The Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has filed his written statement and claimed

that he is ‘Bhangi’ by Caste and is a member of Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand. It

has been asserted by the Respondent No. 1 that he is permanent resident of Jharkhand and he

was born and brought up at Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand. He has passed Matriculation

Examination in the year 1979 from Zila School, Ranchi. He did Graduation in the year 1983

from Ranchi University and thereafter he passed Master of Arts examination in the year 1985

from Ranchi University. He has filed photocopy of his Caste Certificate, which was evident

as Annexure-B in his written statement, which reveals that it was issued on 31.10.2009 by the

office of Anchal Adhikari, Town Anchal, Ranchi, Jharkhand showing his Sub-caste as

‘Bhangi’ (Mehtar) and religion Hindu. It reveals from Annexure-B, which was later on

marked as Ext. –D that this Caste Certificate was issued on 31.10.2009 on the basis of local

inspection and it was clarified that Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent No. 1 is by Caste

‘Bhangi’. This Certificate was given on 31.10.2009 and it bears the signature of some

Authority and which is endorsed by the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi on 31.10.2009.

The Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has enclosed another Caste Certificate dated 20.01.2005

issued by the Anchal Adhikari, Sadar Anchal, Ranchi by which it reveals that the Respondent

No. 1, Smmari Lal i.e. by Caste ‘Bhangi’ (Mehtar). The Respondent No. 1 has filed service

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

book of one Gulabia Devi, DW-3, but the same is illegible, which is for the period

01.04.1051 to 01.04.1968.

145.

In this background the evidence of the Respondent no. 1 is required to be

scrutinized to arrive at just conclusion.

146.

D. W. -1 is Dilip Ram (Son of DW-4), who has stated during his evidence that his

grand-father and grand-father of the respondent no. 1 were own cousin brother and both his

grand-father and grand father of Smmari Lal had been brought by the by British People in

Ranchi, (which was part of the erstwhile State of Bihar) since before the Independence for

the purpose of cleaning work and they had settled at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi.

He also stated that the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal was born in June, 1962 at Ranchi and

he belongs to Caste Bhangi (Mehtar) and follows the Hindu religion, and he comes in the

category of Scheduled Caste and he has taken the benefit of reservation only in Jharkhand

(erstwhile State of Bihar) and not from any other State.

He was cross-examined only on the point of name of his grand-father and to which

this witness, DW-1 stated that his grand- father Late Mohan Ram and grand-father of

Summari Lal is late Janki Ram. However, he had not filed any residential proof of Smmari

Lal or his ancestors in the Court. He fairly admitted that the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal is

his relative.

147.

Therefore, this witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner on the point of

his ancestors migrating from Rajasthan and he was not confronted on the point of District of

Rajasthan from which grand-father of Respodnent No. 1, Smmari lal had arrived. Even DW-1

was not cross-examined on the point of arrival of year of grandfather of the Respondent No.

1, Smmari Lal. Even the PW-1, Suresh Kumar Baitha had not cross-examined DW-1 on the

point that only his father has migrated to Ranchi in the year 1965 for the purpose of job and

he was employed in Rajendra Medical College and Hospital i.e. RMCH.

Thus, evidence of DW-I remains intact on the point of arrival of ancestors of the

Respondent no. 1 i.e. grand-father of the respondent no. 1 from the State of Rajasthan much

before the date of Independence of India ( i.e. before 15.08.1947) and also on the point that

they were brought by the British People to Ranchi for cleaning work etc. Thus, DW-1 fully

supports the case of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal and evidence of PW-1, Suresh Kumar

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Baitha and P.W.-2, Gulzar Ahmad is contradictory from DW-1 on the point of arrival of

father of the respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal in the year 1965 at Ranchi.

148.

D.W.-2 is Jugal Ram, who also stated during his evidence that Late Janki Ram,

grand-father of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal and Mishri Ram Balmiki, father of the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal were resident of Balmiki Nagar, Ranchi prior to the

independence and the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal is also resident of Balmiki Nagar,

Ranchi, which is known as Harijan Colony and the Respondent No. 1 is living in Ranchi

since the time of his birth.

This witness was examined only on the point of employment of grand- father of

the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal to which he stated that he has no personal knowledge as to

where Janki Ram was employed. However, this witness was not cross-examined by the

petitioner on the point of arrival of grand-father of the respondent no.1, Smmari Lal from the

State of Rajasthan by the British People. DW-2 has also not been cross-examined on the

point of birth of Smmari Lal, who was born in the year 1962 and is living in Ranchi since

them.

Therefore, DW-2 has also supported the fact of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari

Lal that ancestors i.e. grand-father and father of Smmari Lal were living in Ranchi since

before the independence and his grand-father were brought to Ranchi (erstwhile State of

Bihar) since before the independence.

Thus, DW-2 supports the case of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal and

contradicts the evidence of PW-1, Suresh Kumar Baitha and P.W.-2, Gulzar Ahmad.

149.

D.W.- 3 is Gulabia Devi, aged about 88 years on the date of her evidence and she

stated that she was born and brought up in Ranchi and her father was residing at Balmiki

Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi. She had worked in Ranchi Municipal from 09.03.1950 till the

date of her retirement and has filed the photocopy of her service book. She also asserted that

the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal was born at Balmiki Nagar, Ranchi and he belongs to

Harijan Caste.

During cross-examination, she could not say as to from where Mishri Lal Balmiki

(father of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal) had arrived at Ranchi, but she had seen him at

Ranchi.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Thus, D.W.- 3, Gulabia Devi has supported the fact of birth of the Respondent No.

1, Smmari Lal at Ranchi, who is said to be born in the year 1962.

150.

DW.-4 is Sajna Ram, who is aged about 85 years and he has stated that his

ancestors were brought to Balmiki Nagar, Ranchi by British People since before

Independence and they had settled there at Ranchi. He has submitted that the Respondent No.

1, Smmari Lal is his brother (cousin brother). He had worked in Ranchi University, Ranchi

from 25.01.1955 to 28.02.1999 and he is pensioner and he had also filed photocopy of his

service book. He further asserted that his father and father of Smmari Lal were living at

Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Kishorganj Ranchi prior to independence together and his

uncle and father of Summari Lal i.e. the Respondent No. 1 had worked at RIMS, Ranchi and

got pension in their whole life. He was also made Member of District Level Caste

Recommendation Committee by the erstwhile State of Bihar.

During cross-examination, this witness was mainly confronted on the point of not

filing any documentary evidence in support of contenstion that Mishri Lal (father of the

Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal) had been settled at Ranchi during British Raj and for not

having documentary evidence of the ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1 living

at Ranchi since before the independence.

151.

No doubt, DW-4 has not filed any documentary evidence of ancestors of the

Respondent No. 1, Smmari lal for living at Ranchi, but even DW-4 was not confronted in

oral testimony that as to which year, the ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent no. 1

had been brought at Ranchi by the British People. Even DW-4 had also not been confronted

on the question of employment of father of Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent No. 1 at RIMS

from 1965.

The petitioner has failed to rebut oral testimony of the evidence of DW-4, who is

retired Government Servent and later on he was nominated as Member of District Level

Caste Recommendation Committee.

Thus, D.W.-4, Sajna Ram has also supported the case of the Respondent No. 1,

Smmari Lal and has contradicted the evidence of DW-1, Dilip Ram and DW-2, Jugal Ram.

152.

DW.-5 is Binod Ram and who is working in Union Bank, Shyamli Colony,

Doranda since the year 1986 and had also supported the case of Smmari Lal, i.e. The

Respondent No. 1 that the family of the Smmari Lal i.e. the Respondent No. 1 were living

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

along with family of his grand-father and grand-mother at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu,

Kishorganj, Ranchi since before the independence. Howeer, he has gone to the extent by

stating that the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal has been contesting election since 1985 from

various political parties i.e. RJD, JMM and BJP and at that time, none had raised objection on

the caste of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1.

During cross-examination, he stated that Janki Ram was the grand-father of the

Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal, although he cannot file document with regard to residential

proof of Janki Ram prior to independence.

Thus, DW-5 has also supported the case of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal that

his ancestors were living with the ancestors of Smmari Lal since before the independence at

Balmiki Nagar, Ranchi.

The petitioner has failed to rebut the oral evidence of DW-4 who is also a

Government Servant.

DW-5 was not confronted by the petitioner on the point of service of the father of

the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal at RIMS in the year 1965 and thus the evidence of DW-5

clearly contradicts the evidence of PW-1, Suresh Kumar Baitha and P.W.-2, Gulzar Ahmad

on the point of arrival ancestors of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal at Ranchi.

153.

DW-6 is Krishna Ram who has stated during his evidence that his ancestors and

ancestors of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal were living at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Raod,

Ranchi prior to independence of the country. He was born in the year 1972 at Balmiki Nagar,

Ranchi and since the time of his birth, they have good relationship with Respondent no. 1

Smmari Lal. He also stated that his ancestors and ancestors of Smmari Lal were brought to

Ranchi at Balmiki Nagar by the British people.

During cross-examination, he stated that Janki Ram was father of Smmari Lal.

Though DW-6 has not correctly stated the name of father of Respondent no. 1

Smmari Lal as he has named Janki Ram as father of Smmari Lal instead of Mishri Lal

Balmiki. However, he admitted and asserted that his ancestors and ancestors of Respondent

no. 1 Smmari Lal were brought to Ranchi by the British people prior to independence.

DW-6 has not been confronted on the question of arrival of their ancestors of Smmari Lal

and his ancestors from Rajasthan. EVen DW-6 is working as a Government Employee and

was appointed on compassionate ground at Ranchi College and is a truthful witness.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Thus, DW-6 has fully supported the case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal that his

ancestors were brought to Ranchi from Rajasthan. Even this DW-6 has not been contradicted

on the point of arrival of father of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal in the year 1965 for doing

job at RMCH, Ranchi.

154.

DW-7 is Tikam Chand Pawar (son of DW-4 Sajna Ram) who also supported the

case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari lal on the point that their ancestors and ancestors of

Smmari Lal were living at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, ranchi prior to independence. This

DW-7 is also a Government servant and retired from the post of Estate Officer, Ranchi

University in the year 2016. He further stated that Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal had

contested elections several times from Kanke Assembly Region and there was no protest

during election on the basis of caste. This witness was not confronted on the point of arrival

of ancestors of Smmari Lal in Ranchi before independence in the erstwhile State of Bihar

rather, he was questioned for not filing any document in support of residential proof of

ancestors of Smmari Lal. He admitted to have knowledge of cancellation of Caste Certificate

of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal by Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The DW-7 has fully supported the case of the Respodnent No. 1, Smmari Lal.

155.

DW-8 is Basant Ram who has also supported the case of Respondent no. 1

Smmari lal. He also stated that his ancestors and ancestors of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal

were living at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi. He also stated that his father and family

members were came to Ranchi before independence and was working as Cleaning Employee

at Ranchi College and as his father had retired from Ranchi College as Cleaning Employee

and had retired in the year 1984. He was also an employee in Ranchi University and retired in

the year 2018 and is getting pension from P.N.B, Ranchi Branch.

Even this witness was cross-examined only on the point of not filing any

documentary evidence in support of ancestors of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal.

The petitioner has failed to rebut the evidence of DW-8. Thus, DW-8 namely

Basant Ram has fully supported the case of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal.

156.

DW-9 is Anand Kumar Balmiki who has also supported the case of Respondent

no. 1 Smmari Lal by stating that his ancestors and ancestors of Smmari Lal were residing at

Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road, Ranchi prior to independence and Respondent no. 1 Smmari

Lal had contested Kanke Assembly Election several times.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

During cross-examination, During cross-examination, he stated that Janki Ram

was father of Smmari Lal.

However, he admitted and asserted that his ancestors and ancestors of Respondent

no. 1 Smmari Lal were brought to Ranchi by the British people prior to independence. DW-9

has not been confronted on the question of arrival of their ancestors of Smmari Lal and his

ancestors from Rajasthan. Thus, DW-9 is working as a Government Employee and was

appointed on compassionate ground at Ranchi College and is a truthful witness.

Thus, DW-9 has fully supported the case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal that his

ancestors were brought to Ranchi from Rajasthan. Even this DW-9 has not been contradicted

on the point of arrival of father of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal in the year 1965 for doing

job at RMCH, Ranchi.

157.

DW-10 is Binod Ram who is a Bank Employee of UCO Bank from the year 1979

till 31.05.2022 and has also supported the case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal by stating

that his ancestors and ancestors of Respondent no.1 had come to Ranchi since before

independence. His ancestors and ancestors of DW-10 had settled at B.I.T Mesra whereas

ancestors of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal had settled at Balmiki Nagar, Kishoreganj, Ranchi

and Respondent no. 1 Smmari lal is relative. Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal had contested

Kanke Constitutency of Assembly Election several times but no one raised objection with

regard to his caste. Even the father of DW-10 i.e. Binod Ram was working as Sweeper in the

year 1960 at B.I.T in Caretaker Office.

DW-10 asserted that his ancestors and ancestors of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal

were brought to Ranchi by the british people prior to independence. DW-10 has not been

confronted on the question of arrival of their ancestors of Smmari Lal and his ancestors from

Rajasthan. Thus, DW-10 was working as a Government Employee and was appointed in the

Bank.

Thus, DW-10 has fully supported the case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal that

his ancestors were brought to Ranchi from Rajasthan. Even this DW-10 has not been

contradicted on the point of arrival of father of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal in the year

1965 for doing job at RMCH, Ranchi.

158.

DW-11 is Prabati Ram who is a retired employee of B.I.T and who had worked in

B.I.T from the year 1966 till the year 2004 and ancestors of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

came to Ranchi since before independence and family DW-11 started living at Neori, Ranchi

whereas ancestors of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal have been living at Balmiki Nagar,

Ranchi. DW-11 is aged about 85 years.

During cross-examination, he mainly confronted on the point of not filing any

documentary proof of ancestors of Smmari Lal who was living at Ranchi since before

independence.

Thus, DW-11 has also supported the case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal.

159.

DW-12 is Bhagi Ram Balmiki who has also supported the case of Respondent no.

1 Smmari Lal by stating that his ancestors as well as ancestors of Respondent no. 1 Smmari

Lal came to Ranchi before independence and had settled at Balmiki Nagar, Harmu Road,

Ranchi. He had worked in Army Headquarter from the year 1968 to 1970, then he worked in

Airport and retired from there.

The retirement order of DW-12 is marked as Exhibit and it reveals from the office

order of Airports Authority of India that DW-12 Bhagi Ram Balmiki had retired from the

services on 30.04.2014.

Even this witness was cross-examined only on the point of not filing any

documentary evidence in support of ancestors of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal. Thus, DW-

12 has also supported the case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal.

160.

DW-13 is one Brij Kishore Bijay who was the Election Agent of Respondent no. 1

Smmari Lal in the Assembly Election of 2019. He also supported the case of Respondent no.

1 Smmari Lal that the father of Respondent no. 1 had worked in RMCH from the year 1965.

He also stated that it was ascertained during local inspection that the ancestors of Smmari Lal

and other people of ‘Bhangi Jati’ were brough to Ranchi from Rajasthan by the British

Government.

During cross-examination, he stated that Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal had

contested elections seven (7) times since the year 1985.

Thus, DW-13 has also supported the case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal as he

was Election Agent of Respondent no.1. DW-13 has proved Exhibit-C (with objection) which

is the photocopy of letter dated 17.10.2022 addressed to Hon’ble Governor under the

signature of Amar Kumar Bauri (MLA of Chandankyari).

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

161.

DW-14 is Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent no. 1. He stated and asserted during his

evidence that he is by caste ‘Bhangi’ and permanent resident of State of Jharkhand and he

was born in Ranchi on 23.06.1962 and has filed the Aadhar Card in support of his evidence.

He has also filed the photocopy of Matriculation Certificate, Intermediate Marksheet,

Graduation Marksheet and Marksheet of M.A. and stated that he has passed Matric exam in

the year 1979 and had passed Graduation in the year 1983 from Ranchi University and also

passed M.A. exam in the year 1985 from Ranchi University, Ranchi. He also filed the

photocopy of NCC Certificate and Registration Certificate of Ranchi Employment Exchange

which has been marked as Exhibit-D/6 and Exhibit-D/7 He also stated that he was selected as

Member of Jharkhand Regional Autonomous Council as Member of Scheduled Caste in the

year 1985 and has filed photocopy of the said certificate. He asserted that his father has

worked in RMCH from the year 1965 till the date of his retirement. He also proved the

photocopy of Appreciation Certificate issued by then Minister to his cousin brother Sajna

Ram which has been marked as Exhibit-D/11. He has also asserted that his ancestors were

brought to Ranchi at Balmiki Nagar by the British people since before independence for

doing the cleaning work. He had denied for committing forgery. He had denied the assertion

of the petitioner for doing forgery and for deceiving the Returning Officer or any other

voters. He empathetically denied that his father came to the erstwhile State of Bihar after

getting Job in RMCH because as a matter of fact, his grandfather and brother of his

grandfather and other family members were brought and settled at Ranchi by the British

people for the cleaning work since before independence. He also denied for violating any

provision of Representation of People’s Act, 1951. He also admitted the Certificate/Report

dated 30.11.2021 handed over to him by Circle Inspector, Bargain to Circle Officer, Bargain,

Ranchi. The said report dated 30.11.2021 is marked as Exhibit-18/70 (marked on behalf of

the petitioner) and also marked as 19 to 19/2 (marked on behalf of the petitioner).

162.

From perusal of Exhibit-19 to 19/2, it would appear that Circle Officer had

forwarded his report dated 19.12.2020 to the Deputy Collector, In-charge by stating that

Misri Lal Balmiki was father of Smmari Lal was posted in Ranchi from 03.07.1965. It was

also reported that Sajna Ram i.e. DW-4 who is the President of Bharat Ambedkar/Balmiki

Panchayat, Ranchi had submitted report on his letter pad in writing that Smmari Lal son of

Late Misri Lal Balmiki is by caste ‘Bhangi’. Even, several people who was present in the

meeting at the resident of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal is living in the quarter of RIMS since

last 45-50 years and he belongs to ‘Bhangi’ caste. The Circle Officer has given reference to

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Letter No. 7 dated 03.07.2004 issued by Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa

Department. He has further referred the Circular dated 05.08.2016 (marked as Exhibit-11) for

issuance of Certificate to the Member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in the State

of Jharkhand. However, he could not find any evidence of ancestors of Smmari Lal for

residing in Jharkhand prior to 1950.

163.

Exhibit-19/2 is the report dated 30.11.2021 sent by Circle Inspector to Circle

Officer, Bargain, Ranchi by which it has been informed that as per local

inspection/investigation made by Circle Inspector, he was informed by the local members of

‘Bhangi’ (Balmiki Caste) that ancestors of Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent No. 1 and people

of other Bhangi Caste were brought by the British people from Rajasthan but they could not

produced any documentary evidence and they could not explain as to from which district of

Rajasthan their ancestors had come, but stated that Smmari Lal and his ancestors were mainly

from the State of Rajasthan and have settled for their livelihood at Ranchi.

However, Circle Officer has not disclosed the name of any witness.

164.

Thus, Exhibit-19, 19/1 and 19/2 respectively are vague. Although, Circle Inspector

had found during local inspection that ancestors of Smmari Lal and other people of Bhangi

Caste were brought to Ranchi since before independence by the British people for the

cleaning work yet, he avoided by giving them correct picture and also gave his opinion that

family members of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal belong to Rajasthan and had settled at

Ranchi. However, it is evident from the evidence of DW-14 i.e. Respondent no. 1 that his

ancestors have been brought to Ranchi since before independence by the British people and

which is also corroborated from the evidence of D.W.-1 Dilip Ram, D.W.-2 Jugal Ram,

D.W.-3 Gulabiya Devi, D.W.-4 Sajna Ram, D.W.-5 Binod Ram, S/o Bannu Ram, D.W.-6

Krishna Ram, D.W.-7 Tikam Chand Pawar, D.W.-8 Basant Ram, D.W.-9 Anand Kumar

Balmiki, D.W.-10 Binod Ram, S/o Baiju Ram, D.W.-11 Parbhati Ram, D.W.-12 Bhagi Ram,

he has been born in Ranchi in the year 1962 and he has been brought up in Ranchi and his

educational studies right from the Matriculation to M.A exam from Ranchi in the erstwhile

State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). It is evident that Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal is living in

Ranchi since the year 1962 and his grandfather were brought to Ranchi by the British

Administration.

165.

DW-15 is Damodar Ram who is a retired employee of Bank of Baroda, Main

Branch, Ranchi in the year 2017 and he also stated that his grandfather late Pokhan Ram had

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

settled with ancestors o Respondent no. 1 at Harmu Road, Ranchi. He stated that father of

Smmari Lal was working in RMCH whereas, father of DW-15 was working at Coal Server

Depot in Ranchi and even the Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal had contested the election seven

(7) times.

Thus, This witness was cross-examined only on the question of cancellation of

Caste Certificate of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. DW-15

has not been confronted on the question of arrival of ancestors of Smmari Lal since before

independence at Ranchi.

Thus, DW-15 has supported the case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal.

166.

DW-16 is Jyoti Kumar Singh who is the Muncipal Commissioner and he has been

examined only on the point of maintaining the service book of DW-3 Gulabiya Devi.

Thus, DW-16 is a formal witness, but his evience suggests that DW-3 was

working in Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

167.

DW-17 is Mukund Chandra Mehta who was examined only on the point of

maintaining service book of DW-4 i.e. Sajna Ram who was working in Biology Department

at Ranchi College, Ranchi and he has proved the service book of DW-4 i.e. Sajna Ram for

identification marked as “Y”.

Thus, DW-17 is a formal witness who has come to identify the documents which

is the service book and application for pension of DW-4 Sajna Ram. However, the evidence

of DW- 17 reveals that DW-4 Sajna Ram was working in Ranchi College, Ranchi. Thus, the

evidence of DW-17 supports the case of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal.

168.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Action Committee

on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of

Maharashtra and Another Versus Union of India and Another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244,

at para-6, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18 as follows:-

“Para-6:- The Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs noticed that certificates

belonging to a particular Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe were not issued strictly in accordance

with the principles governing the issue of such certificates presumably on account of lack of

understanding of the legal position regarding the concept of the term “residence” on the part of

the authorities concerned. With a view to clarifying the legal position the communication of 22-3-

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

1977 came to be issued. The relevant part of that communication may be reproduced for ready

reference:

“As required under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the President has, with respect to

every State and Union Territory and where it is State after consultation with the Governor of the

concerned State, issued orders notifying various Castes and Tribes as Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory from time to time. The inter-State

area restrictions have been deliberately imposed so that the people belonging to the specific

community residing in a specific area, which has been assessed to qualify for the Scheduled Caste

or Scheduled Tribe status, only benefit from the facilities provided for them. Since the people

belonging to the same caste but living in different State/Union Territories may not both be treated

to belong to Scheduled Caste/Tribe or vice versa. Thus the residence of a particular person in a

particular locality assumes a special significance. This residence has not to be understood in the

liberal or ordinary sense of the word. On the other hand it connotes the permanent residence of a

person on the date of the notification of the Presidential Order scheduling his caste/tribe in

relation to that locality. Thus a person who is temporarily away from his permanent place or

abode at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order applicable in his case, say for

example, to earn a living or seek education, etc., can also be regarded as a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, if his caste/tribe has been specified in that order in relation

to his State/Union Territory. But he cannot be treated as such in relation to the place of his

temporary residence notwithstanding the fact that the name of his caste/tribe has been scheduled

in respect of that area in any Presidential Order.”

The communication further states that with a view to ensuring the veracity of permanent

residence of a person and that of the caste/tribe to which he claims to belong, the Government of

India made a special provision in the pro forma prescribed for the issue of such certificates. In

order to ensure that competent authorities should alone issue such certificates the Government of

India (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) by a letter dated 6-8-1975 indicated

the authorities locality-wise who should issue the certificates. The communication then proceeds

to add:

“Thus the Revenue Authority of one District would not be competent to issue such a

certificate in respect of persons belonging to another District. Nor can such an authority of one

State/Union Territory issue such certificates in respect of persons whose place of permanent

residence at the time of the notification of a particular Residential Order, has been in a different

State/Union Territory.”

This was emphasised because only the revenue authorities of the locality of which the

individual is the resident alone would have access to revenue records to be in a position to make

reliable enquiries before the issuance of the certificate. In regard to persons born after the date of

the notification of the relevant Presidential Order, the communication states that the place of

residency for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe certificate is the place

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

of permanent abode of their parents at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order under

which they claim to belong to such a caste/tribe.

Para-7:- Subsequent to the issuance of the said communication by the Government of India, the

Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes submitted his 22nd Report wherein he

pointed out that instances had come to his notice where false certificates were produced by non-

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons to secure government service or admission to

educational institutions. The report disclosed that such certificates were being issued without the

authority issuing the same being even aware of basic requirements necessary for such certificates.

On the basis of the recommendations made by the Commissioner and having regard to the

procedure adopted by the State of West Bengal which was commended for acceptance by the

Commissioner, the Government of Maharashtra, in modification of the existing orders directed

that caste certificates issued by the Special Executive Magistrates should be treated as

‘preliminary certificates’ and final certificates should be issued only by the Executive Magistrate

authorised by the District Magistrate in that behalf. It was also directed that Special Executive

Magistrates should certify only the castes to which they themselves belonged. The Government

states that if despite these instructions incorrect caste certificates are issued, a serious view will

be taken. In the instructions appended to the said Government Order it was, inter alia, stated in

paragraphs 13 and 19 as under:

“13. Caste Certificates should be issued only to those who have ordinary residence of the place

within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. Ordinary residence means residence which is

not for the purpose of service, employment, education, confinement in jail, etc. In short, it means

permanent residence and not a temporary residence.

19. Where a person migrates from one State to another, he can claim to belong to a Scheduled

Caste or a Scheduled Tribe only in relation to the State from which he has migrated. The

competent authority should not, therefore, issue a caste certificate to a person from other State,

whether he is ordinary (sic) residing in this State or not.”

By the subsequent letter of 12-2-1981, it was further clarified that in order to become

eligible for being treated to be a member of Scheduled Caste/Tribe in relation to the State of

Maharashtra a person should be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra before 10-8-

1950, and 6-9-1950, respectively, the dates of the notifications of the respective Presidential

Orders of 1950 scheduling the castes/tribes in relation to the State of Maharashtra. Since there

was no State of Maharashtra in 1950 it would be reasonable to understand it to mean the

geographical area now forming part of the State of Maharashtra. At the foot of the pro forma of

the certificate the following note was appended:

“Note : The term ‘ordinarily reside(s)’ used here will have same meaning as in Section 20 of the

Representation of the People Act, 1950.”

Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, reads as under:

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

“20. Meaning of ‘ordinarily resident’.— (1) A person shall not be deemed to be ordinary resident

in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of, a dwelling house

therein.

(1A) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary residence shall not by

reason thereof cease to be ordinarily resident therein.

(1B) A member of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State shall not during the term of his

office cease to be ordinarily resident in the constituency in the electoral roll of which he is

registered as an elector at the time of his election as such member, by reason of his absence from

that constituency in connection with his duties as such member.

(2)

A person who is a patient in any establishment maintained wholly or mainly for the

reception and treatment of persons suffering from mental illness or mental defectiveness, or who

is detained in prison or other legal custody at any place, shall not by reason thereof be deemed to

be ordinarily resident therein.

(3)

Any person having a service qualification shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident on any

date in the constituency in which, but for his having such service qualification, he would have

been ordinarily resident on that date.

(4)

Any person holding any office in India declared by the President in consultation with the

Election Commission to be an office to which the provisions of this sub-section apply, shall be

deemed to be ordinarily resident on any date in the constituency in which, but for the holding of

any such office, he would have been ordinarily resident on that date.

(5)

The statement of any such person as is referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4)

made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, that but for his having the

service qualifications or but for his holding any such office as is referred to in sub-section (4) he

would have been ordinarily resident in a specified place on any date, shall, in the absence of

evidence to the contrary, be accepted as correct.

(6)

The wife of any such person as is referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section(4) shall, if

she be ordinarily residing with such person be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the

constituency specified by such person under sub-section(5).

(7)

If in any case a question arises as to where a person is ordinarily resident at any relevant

time, the question shall be determined with reference to all the facts of the case and to such rules

as may be made in this behalf by the Central Government in consultation with the Election

Commission.

(8)

In sub-sections (3) and (5) ‘service qualification’ means—

(a)

being a member of the armed forces of the Union; or

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(b)

being a member of a force to which the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950),

have been made applicable whether with or without modifications; or

(c)

being a member of an armed police force of a State, who is serving outside that State; or

(d)

being a person who is employed under the Government of India,

in a post outside India.”

Para-8:- In course of time persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes who had

migrated from one State to another in search of employment or for education purposes and the

like, experienced great difficulty in obtaining Caste/Tribe Certificates from the State from which

they had migrated. To remove this difficulty experienced by them the earlier instructions

contained in the letter of 22-3-1977, and the subsequent letter of 29- 3-1982, were modified, in

that, the prescribed authority of a State/Union Territory was permitted to issue the Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribe Certificate to a person who had migrated from another State on production

of a genuine certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of the father's

origin except where the prescribed authority considered a detailed enquiry necessary through the

State of origin before issue of certificate. It was further stated that the certificate will be issued

irrespective of whether the Caste/Tribe in question is scheduled or not in relation to the

State/Union Territory to which the person has migrated. Of course, this facility did not alter the

Scheduled Caste/Tribe status of the person in relation to the one or the other State. The revised

form of the certificate was circulated. Further, it was clarified that a Scheduled Caste/Tribe

person who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State for the purpose of

education, employment, etc., will be deemed to be Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his

origin only and will be entitled to derive benefits from that State and not from the State to which

he had migrated. By this clarificatory order forwarded to Chief Secretaries of all States/Union

Territories, the only facility extended was that the prescribed authority of the State/Union

Territory to which a person had migrated was permitted to issue the certificate to the migrant on

production of the genuine certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of

the father's origin provided that the prescribed authority could always enquire into the matter

through the State of origin if he entertained any doubt. The certificate to be so issued would be in

relation to the State/Union Territory from which the person concerned had migrated and not in

relation to the State/Union Territory to which he had migrated. Therefore, the migrant would not

be entitled to derive benefits in the State to which he had migrated on the strength of such a

certificate. This was reiterated in a subsequent letter dated 15-10-1987 addressed to Smt Shashi

Misra, Secretary, Social Welfare, etc., in the State of Maharashtra. In paragraph 4 of that letter it

was specifically stated:

“Further, a Scheduled Caste person, who has migrated from the State of his origin, which is

considered to be his ordinary place of residence after the issue of the first Presidential Order,

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

1950, can get benefit from the State of his origin and not from the State to which he has

migrated.”

So stating the proposal regarding reduction in the period of cut-off point of 1950 for migration

was spurned. It was stated that the proposal could have been taken care of only if the lists of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were made on all-India basis which, it was said, was not

feasible in view of the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. It will thus, be seen

that so far as the Government of India is concerned, since the date of issuance of the

communication dated 22-3-1977, it has firmly held the view that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled

Tribe person who migrates from the State of his origin to another State in search of employment

or for educational purposes or the like, cannot be treated as a person belonging to the Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribe of the State to which he migrates and hence he cannot claim benefit as

such in the latter State.

Para-16:- We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for

inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State

would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that

caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons

belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same

nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have

been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements

which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely

because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that

if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to

the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the

Scheduled Caste of the latter State “for the purposes of this Constitution”. This is an aspect which

has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is

evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in

answer to a question by Mr Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under:

“He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal

area migrates to another part of the territory of India, which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal

area, will he be able to claim from the local Government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing

the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is residing within the scheduled area

or within the tribal area? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in

quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some

answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. But so far as the present

Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal

area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he

is residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practicably impossible

to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those

which are covered by them….”

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to

admission to the medical college on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State

of his origin.

Para-17:- Lastly the Constitution Bench referred to the cleavage in the views of different High

Courts on the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution and the consequential

orders passed by the Government of India and the State Governments. It referred to the two

decisions of the Gujarat High Court as well as the decision of the Karnataka High Court which

place the interpretation canvassed before us by Mr Raju Ramachandran. The other side referred to

the decisions of the Orissa High Court in K. Appa Rao v. Director of Posts & Telegraphs,

Orissa [AIR 1969 Ori 220 : 35 Cut LT 55] , the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High

Court in M.S. Malathi v. Commissioner, Nagpur Division [AIR 1989 Bom 138 : 1988 Mah LJ

1041 : (1988) 90 Bom LR 532 (FB)]

and the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in V.B. Singh v. State of Punjab [ILR

(1976) 1 P&H 769] which take the contrary view canvassed before us by the respondents. All

these decisions were considered by the Constitution Bench which agreed with the latter view. It

upheld the view expressed in the communication dated 22-2-1985 and negatived the challenge of

the petitioner that the said view was ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 or 21. It, however, observed

that in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner

student's career was involved it directed the authorities to consider whether the petitioner was a

‘Goudi’ and if yes, the institution may consider if he can be allowed to complete his studies in the

institution. However, on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution this

Court was clear in its view that legally speaking he was not entitled to admission in the Scheduled

Tribe quota.

Para-18:- We are in respectful agreement with the above view expressed by the Constitution

Bench in the aforesaid decision. All the points which were canvassed before us by Mr Raju

Ramachandran were also canvassed by him in the said matter. They were negatived by the

Constitution Bench. Nothing has been pointed out to persuade us to think that the view taken by

the Constitution Bench requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. In fact we are in complete

agreement with the interpretation placed on the various provisions of the Constitution, in

particular Articles 341 and 342 thereof, in the said judgment. We, therefore, see no merit in this

writ petition and dismiss the same. However, we make no order as to costs.”

169.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Shankar

Kathore Versus Arun Dattatray Sawant and Ors. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 162 at para-

43 as follows:-

“Para-43:- When the information is given by a candidate in the affidavit filed along with the

nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information

or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

the Returning Officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. Summary enquiry may not

suffice. The present case is itself an example which loudly demonstrates this. At the same time, it

would not be possible for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination for want of verification

about the allegations made by the objector. In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was

a case of non-disclosure and either the affidavit was false or it did not contain complete

information leading to suppression, it can be held at that stage that the nomination was

improperly accepted. Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Election

Commission, rightly argued that such an enquiry can be only at a later stage and the appropriate

stage would be in an election petition as in the instant case, when the election is challenged. The

grounds stated in Section 36(2) are those which can be examined there and then and on that basis

the Returning Officer would be in a position to reject the nomination. Likewise, where the blanks

are left in an affidavit, nomination can be rejected there and then. In other cases where detailed

enquiry is needed, it would depend upon the outcome thereof, in an election petition, as to

whether the nomination was properly accepted or it was a case of improper acceptance. Once it is

found that it was a case of improper acceptance, as there was misinformation or suppression of

material information, one can state that question of rejection in such a case was only deferred to a

later date. When the Court gives such a finding, which would have resulted in rejection, the effect

would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest and the election is void.

Otherwise, it would be an anomalous situation that even when criminal proceedings under

Section 125-A of the Act can be initiated and the selected candidate is criminally prosecuted and

convicted, but the result of his election cannot be questioned. This cannot be countenanced.”

170.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh Versus

Delhi Jal Board and Others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 at para-24 and 26 as follows:-

“Para-24:- Whenever States' reorganisation had taken place in the past, Parliament had exercised

its powers under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) and provided for specific Castes/Tribes that were

entitled to be recognised as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the reorganised

States/Union Territories. The Scheme of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) and (Scheduled

Tribes) Orders makes it clear that Parliament's intention was to extend the benefits of reservation

in relation to the States/Union Territories only to the castes, races or tribes as mentioned in the

Presidential Orders.

Para-26:- Though in a different context i.e. in relation to Backward Classes this Court in MCD v.

Veena [MCD v. Veena, (2001) 6 SCC 571 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 992] , has specifically held that

migrants are not entitled for reservation as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the States/Union

Territories where they have migrated. The relevant portion of the judgment that may be noticed is

as hereunder: (SCC p. 574, para 6)

“6. Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory, which obviously

means that such caste would include caste belonging to an OBC group in relation to that State or

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Union Territory for which it is specified. The matters that are to be taken into consideration for

specifying a particular caste in a particular group belonging to OBCs would depend on the nature

and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste or group in that State.

However, it may not be so in another State to which a person belonging thereto goes by

migration. It may also be that a caste belonging to the same nomenclature is specified in two

States but the considerations on the basis of which they had been specified may be totally

different. So the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the data for

specification may also be entirely different. Thus, merely because a given caste is specified in one

State as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be another group belonging to

the same nomenclature in another State, a person belonging to that group is entitled to the rights,

privileges and benefits admissible to the members of that caste. These aspects have to be borne in

mind in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution with reference to application of reservation

to OBCs.”

171.

It has further been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh

Versus Delhi Jal Board and Others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 at para-11 to 14

and 34 as follows:-

“Para-11:- The caste system in India, which is the bane of a just social order, has a long history

which can be traced to the earliest times. Ancient Hindu religious scriptures refer to the practice.

Division of society based on birth and the calling/profession of a person has continued to

dominate Hindu thinking and way of life and is perhaps one of the thorny problems inherited by

the British Administration which had tried to resolve the same by giving legal recognition to what

came to be termed as the “depressed classes”. Such recognition was in the form of a protective

regime which extended to representation in the legislature and in the services under the State.

Exercises in finding out the numerical strength of the depressed class in the early 20th century

(by Southborough Committee) revealed a grim picture indicating such number to be as high as 20

per cent of the majority population (Hindu) in eight (08) Indian Provinces of Madras, Bombay,

Bengal, United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar and Orissa, Central Provinces and Assam. The above

figure did not include primitive or aboriginal tribes who later came to be known as the Scheduled

Tribes and included in the list of Scheduled Tribes under the different Presidential Orders issued

from time to time.

Para-12:- The Government of India Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1935 Act”) (also

referred to as “the Constitution Act”) brought into force the expression “Scheduled Castes” for

the first time in Indian constitutional history. Entry 26 Part I of the First Schedule to the 1935 Act

stipulates that:

“26. (1)the Scheduled Castes means such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within the

castes, races or tribes, being castes, races, tribes, parts or groups, which appear to His Majesty in

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Council to correspond to the classes of persons formerly known as “the depressed classes”, as His

Majesty in Council may specify;”

(emphasis supplied)

Para-13:- Thereafter a Gazette Notification was published on 6-6-1936 promulgating the

Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1936 notifying the list of castes that are to be

considered as “the Scheduled Castes” across the territory of India. A look at the Schedule which

consisted of nine (09) parts i.e. Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar,

Central Provinces, Assam, Orissa would indicate that identification of the different castes for

inclusion as Scheduled Castes in the Schedule to the 1935 Act was based on an elaborate exercise

conducted for each of the provinces so much so that while some castes have been identified as

Scheduled Castes throughout a province, others have been so identified to limited areas within a

province. The post constitutional exercise by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950

and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as originally enacted under Articles 341 and

342 of the Constitution, was basically an exercise in re-casting the Schedule to the 1935 Act. The

subsequent amendments to the aforesaid two Orders, from time to time, have been necessitated to

bring the position in tune with the amendments to the First Schedule to the Constitution made at

different points of time by creation of new States and alterations in the area and boundaries of

existing States.

Para-14:- Article 366 of the Constitution which defines expressions appearing in the Constitution

specifically defines “Scheduled Castes” [clause (24)] to mean

“such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed

under Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution”.

(emphasis supplied)

Similarly, clause (25) of Article 366 defines “Scheduled Tribes” to mean

“such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities

as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution”.

(emphasis supplied)

Para-34:- Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in

one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which

he migrates for the purpose of employment or education. The expressions “in relation to that

State or Union Territory” and “for the purpose of this Constitution” used in Articles 341 and 342

of the Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by the

Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/Union Territory in

respect of which the lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the

Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste

in State ‘A’.”

172.

It further transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Action

Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the

State of Maharashtra and Another Versus Union of India and Another reported in (1994) 5

SCC 244 (Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) has held that a person

arrived at the migrated State from the original State will not be entitled to benefit of

reservation. It has been observed that power is vested only with the Hon’ble President of

India to decide the benefit of reservation in favour of particular Caste to one State or the other

State.

173.

At this stage it is relevant to refer Article-332, 341 and 342 of the Constitution of

India, which read as follows:-

“ARTICLE 332: Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the

Legislative Assemblies of the States—

(1)

Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, 9[except the

Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam], in the Legislative Assembly of every

State 10***

(2)

Seats shall be reserved also for the autonomous districts in the Legislative Assembly of the

State of Assam.

(3)

The number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in the

Legislative Assembly of any State under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same

proportion to the total number of seats in the Assembly as the population of the Scheduled Castes

in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or part of the State, as the case may be, in

respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population of the State.

[(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (3), until the taking effect, under article 170,

of the re-adjustment, on the basis of the first census after the year 2000, of the number of seats in

the Legislative Assemblies of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and

Nagaland, the seats which shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly

of any such State shall be,—

(a)

if all seats in the Legislative Assembly of such State in existence on the date of coming

into force of the Constitution (Fifty-seventh Amendment) Act, 1987 (hereafter in this clause

referred to as the existing Assembly) are held by members of the Scheduled Tribes, all seats

except one;

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(b)

in any other case, such number of seats as bears to the total number of seats, a proportion

not less than the number (as on the said date) of members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in

the existing Assembly bears to the total number of seats in the existing Assembly.]

[(3B)Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (3), until the re- adjustment, under article 170,

takes effect on the basis of the first census after the year 2000, of the number of seats in the

Legislative Assembly of the State of Tripura, the seats which shall be reserved for the Scheduled

Tribes in the Legislative Assembly shall be, such number of seats as bears to the total number of

seats, a proportion not less than the number, as on the date of coming into force of the

Constitution (Seventy-second Amendment) Act, 1992, of members belonging to the Scheduled

Tribes in the Legislative Assembly in existence on the said date bears to the total number of seats

in that Assembly.]

(4)

The number of seats reserved for an autonomous district in the Legislative Assembly of the

State of Assam shall bear to the total number of seats in that Assembly a proportion not less than

the population of the district bears to the total population of the State.

(5)

The constituencies for the seats reserved for any autonomous district of Assam shall not

comprise any area outside that district

(6)

No person who is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe of any autonomous district of the

State of Assam shall be eligible for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State from any

constituency of that district 3***

[Provided that for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Assam, the representation

of the Scheduled Tribes and non- Scheduled Tribes in the constituencies included in the

Bodoland Territorial Area District, so notified, and existing prior to the constitution of the

Bodoland Territorial Areas District, shall be maintained.]

ATTICLE 341: Scheduled Castes— (1) The President 16[may with respect to any State 17[or

Union Territory], and where it is a State18*** , after consultation with the Governor19.***

thereof,] by public notification20, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within

castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled

Castes in relation to that State 17[or Union territory, as the case may be].

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a

notification under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or

tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any

subsequent notification.

ARTICLE 342: Scheduled Tribes— (1) The President 21[may with respect to any State 17[or

Union territory], and where it is a State 18***, after consultation with the Governor19***

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

thereof,] by public notification22, 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 17[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.”

174.

It is further evident that the above judgment i.e. (1994) 5 SCC 244 was also

considered in the case of in the case of Bir Singh Versus Delhi Jal Board and Others

reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 by another Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India and it has been observed at para-19 as follows:-

“Para-19:- Articles 341 and 342 also makes it clear that the caste, race or tribe or part of or group

within any caste, race or tribe as specified in the Presidential Order under Article 341(1) or a tribe

or tribal community as may be specified in the Presidential Order under Article 342(1) shall be

deemed to be Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of the Constitution in relation

to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be. The above position is further made clear by

Clause(2) of the two Presidential Orders which are in the following terms.

“Clause 2 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950

Subject to the provisions of this Order, the castes, races or tribes or parts of, or groups

within, castes or tribes specified in Parts I to XXV of the Schedule to this Order shall, in relation

to the States to which those Parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes so far as

regards member thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them in those Parts of

that Schedule.

Clause 2 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950

2. The Tribes or tribal communities, or parts of, or groups within, tribes or tribal communities,

specified in Parts I to XXII of the Schedule to this Order shall, in relation to the States to which

those Parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far as regards members

thereof residents in the localities specified in relation to them respectively in those Parts of that

Schedule.”

175.

Thus, it is evident that in the above judgment also (2018) 10 SCC 312 the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India has observed that a person will not be entitled to get benefit of

reservation of migrated State unless he is able to produce the evidence of reservation of the

origin of the State of his father. In the above judgment also four Hon’ble Judges of Hon’ble

Supreme Court has concurred with the similar view, which was delivered by Hon’ble Mr.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Justice Ranjan Gogoi, then His Lordship was. However, even Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R.

Banumathi has also concurred the view of majority by giving Her Lordship own reasoning in

separate paragraphs.

176.

However, in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another versus Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Judgment

of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 (5) SCC 244 was not

taken note of. However, the above judgment has been passed in different context with regard

to issuance of Caste Certificate and in case of dispute in issuance of Caste Certificate of any

particular Student, person or candidate, a detailed guideline has been provided in para-13.

177.

It has been held in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another versus

Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 at

Para nos. 8 and 13 as follows:-

Para:-8. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College [(1990) 3 SCC 130 :

(1990) 14 ATC 671] , this Court declared that subject to the law made by Parliament under sub-

section (2) of Section 342, the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or

tribal communities specified by the President by a public notification shall be final for the

purpose of the Constitution. They are the tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory and

that any tribe or tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribe or tribal

communities, not specified therein in relation to that State, shall not be Scheduled Tribes for the

purpose of the Constitution. The father of one Chandra Shekhar Rao who hailed from Tenali in

Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh is a Settibalija by caste which is recognised as a backward

class. His father obtained a certificate from the Tahsildar, Tenali that he belonged to Scheduled

Tribe and had got an appointment in a public undertaking of Bombay. On the basis of social

status certificate obtained by his father and entries in service record of his father, he applied for

admission into medical college as Scheduled Tribe. When he was not admitted, he filed the writ

petition in this Court under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Settibalija though was not

declared to be Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra it was a Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of the

Constitution and that he was entitled to the admission into the medical college on the basis of his

social status as a Scheduled Tribe. This Court did not uphold the contention. This Court held that

the declaration by the President by a public notification in relation to a State in consultation with

the Governor of that State is conclusive and court cannot give such a declaration. The same view

was reiterated by another Constitution Bench in Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to

SCs and STs in the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India [(1994) 5 SCC 244] .

Para;-13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false

social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or

Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational

institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate.

The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create

hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications

for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a

time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming

false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the

earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to

streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their

approval, which may be the following:

The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-

Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be

issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.

The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn

and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and

sub- castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place

from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate

concerned.

Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed

at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an

appointment to a post.

All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an

Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high-er in rank of the Director of the department

concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as

the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has

intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates.

In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate

knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes

or tribal communities.

Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy

Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate

into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original

place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or

city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally

verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or

guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or

such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a

report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular,

of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity,

rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the

castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.

The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the

claim for social status to be “not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed,

the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the

vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the

head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The

notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks

from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the

date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and

claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply

shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give

reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their

claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the

village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce

evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through

counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims

vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with

brief reasons in support thereof.

In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further

action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be

false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6

be followed.

Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case

candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the

claim for the social status certificates.

The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day

proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny

Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the

certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date

of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.

10.

In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for

admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or

appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by

the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non- official and such admission or

appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny

Committee.

11.

The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12.

No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.

13.

The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period

of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is

disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division

Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.

14.

In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the

parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution

ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving

moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or

elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.

15.

As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate

obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be

communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered

post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The

Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the

appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the

candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post.”

178.

The guidelines also envisages in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) was

given by two Hon’ble Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this has been approved by the

Larger Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court in the case of Dayaram versus

Sudhir Batham and Others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333 by which the Three Judges of

Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the detailed guideline as prescribed in the judgment

reported in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another versus Additional Commissioner,

Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 with minor modification by

which it has been held that intra Court Appeal

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

i.e. LPA will be maintainable against the Judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge of

the said Supreme Court and all the remaining guidelines except the above one has been

approved.

179.

It has been held in the case of Dayaram versus Sudhir Batham and Others reported in

(2012) 1 SCC 333 at Para nos. 22, 35, 36 and 44 which are as follows:

Para:-22. Therefore, we are of the view, that Directions 1 to 15 issued in exercise of power under

Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution, are valid and laudable, as they were made to fill the

vacuum in the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe candidates secured the benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were

kept out. By issuing such directions, this Court was not taking over the functions of the

legislature but merely filling up the vacuum till the legislature chose to make an appropriate law.

Para:- 35. The Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a court or tribunal, but an

administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status)

and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions of

administrative authorities, the orders of the Scrutiny Committee are also open to challenge in

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Permitting civil suits with provisions for

appeals and further appeals would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils

which this Court wanted to eradicate. As this Court found that a large number of seats or posts

reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were being taken away by bogus

candidates claiming to belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, this Court directed the

constitution of such Scrutiny Committees, to provide an expeditious, effective and efficacious

remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal framework for proper verification of false claims

regarding SCs/STs status. This entire scheme in Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC

(L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] will only continue till the legislature concerned makes an

appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status as SC/ST and issue of

caste certificates, or in regard to verification of caste certificates already obtained by candidates

who seek the benefit of reservation, relying upon such caste certificates.

Para:-36. Having regard to the scheme for verification formulated by this Court in Madhuri Patil

[(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259]

the Scrutiny Committees carry out verification of caste certificates issued without prior enquiry,

as for example, the caste certificates issued by Tahsildars or other officers of the departments of

Revenue/Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare, without any enquiry or on the basis of self-affidavits

about caste. If there were to be a legislation governing or regulating grant of caste certificates,

and if caste certificates are issued after due and proper inquiry, such caste certificates will not call

for verification by the Scrutiny Committees. Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC

(L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] provides for verification only to avoid false and bogus claims.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

The said scheme and the directions therein have been satisfactorily functioning for the last one-

and-a-half decades. If there are any shortcomings, the Government can always come up with an

appropriate legislation to substitute the said scheme. We see no reason why the procedure laid

down in Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] should

not continue in the absence of any legislation governing the matter.

Para:- 44. In view of the above, we hold that the second sentence of Direction 13 of Madhuri

Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] providing that where the

writ petition is disposed of by a Single Judge, no further appeal would lie against the order of the

Division Bench (even when there is a vested right to file such intra-court appeal) and will only be

subject to a special leave under Article 136, is not legally proper and therefore, to that extent, is

held to be not a good law. The second sentence of Direction 13 stands overruled. As a

consequence, wherever the writ petitions against the orders of the Scrutiny Committee are heard

by a Single Judge and the State law or Letters Patent permits an intra-court appeal, the same will

be available.

180.

The above judgment

in the case of Dayaram versus Sudhir Batham and Others

reported in (2012)1 SCC 333 was not under consideration in the case of Bir Singh Versus

Delhi Jal Board and Others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

However, direction given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra), which was approved

in the case of Dayaram versus Sudhir Batham and Others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333 has

not been disturbed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the subsequent Judgment.

181.

At this stage, it further transpires that learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1

has filed the judgment of passed in the case of Laddu Ram Versus Jaipal Singh passed in

Election Petition No. 08 of 2019 vide judgment dated by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

at Gwalior that ordinary resident has to be considered liberally also if a candidate is living at

one particular place for several years.

182.

It has been held in the case of Laddu Ram Versus Jaipal Singh passed in Election

Petition No. 08 of 2019 vide judgment dated 08.11.2023 by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh at Gwalior at para- 25, 26, 50, 51, 54, 61, 73 as follows:-

“Para-25:- That, the Respondent No. 1 was never accepted as a member of Scheduled caste. The

community also did not consider him to be a member of the scheduled caste. Persons of ‘NAT’

community also did not accept him to be a ‘NAT’. Respondent No. 1 also calls himself ‘NAT’

(Baazigar) and he does not fall in Entry No. 41 mentioned above.

Para-26:- That, the Respondent No. 1 has not disclosed that his family was living prior to the year

1950 at Punjab. Shri Sita Ram Raghuvanshi S/o Lalji Ram Raghuvanshi Ashok Nagar Road,

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Sadora and Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi S/o Amar Singh R/o Durga Colony, Ashok Nagar and

Respondent No. 1 and the people living in that constituency No. 32, all knew that the family

came to Guna after 1950, the Respondent No. 1 was migrated in Ashok Nagar much after 1950.

Para:- 50 “since the respondent no. 01 originally hails from Punjab, whether he could be treated

as member of Schedule Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh”?

Para-51:- As discussed above the issue of caste of the respondent no. 1 has finally been decided

up to the Apex Court and as per the caste certificate, he belongs to ‘NAT’ Caste/Scheduled Caste.

It is also crystal clear that in the light of case of Madhuri Patil (supra) the question of genuineness

of the caste certificate can not be decided in this election petition. Therefore, on the basis of order

of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is found to be proved that the respondent No. 1 could be

treated as member of Schedule Caste in the state of Madhya Pradesh.

Para-54:- In the judgment of the Madhuri Patil (supra), the Apex court held that verification,

scrutiny and approval of any caste certificate can be adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority

State Level High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and had prescribed the procedure. Para 15 of

the said judgment deals with scope, dimension, limit and extent of jurisdiction of the High Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution while addressing a challenge made to report and

recommendations of High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The same is also relevant for the

purpose of this petition and is reproduced as under:—

“15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not

elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of

appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the

evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found

vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with

findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a

finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to

reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the

relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have

led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the

backdrop of its own facts.”

(Emphasis supplied)

In view of the above law laid down in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), it is crystal

clear that validity of caste certificate cannot be adjudicated in the election petition (trial) and

verification, scrutiny and approval of any caste certificate can be adjudicated by the quasi judicial

authority i.e. State Level High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Para-61:- As discussed above, at the time of filling the nomination form and at the time of

declaration of result in favour of Respondent No.-1 the stay order dated 25.10.2013 was in

existence by which the

D.B. of this court had stayed impugned order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the High Level Caste

Scrutiny Committee, and the order was stayed until the final decision of the writ petition No.

7047/2013. In the light of said stay order the Returning Officer had rejected the objection no. 2

raised by the petitioner vide order date 13.11.2018. Aggrieved by, the election petitioner has filed

an instant election petition.

Para-67:- In view of the aforesaid discussions, the petition sans merits and therefore, instant

Election Petition No. 08/2019 Ladduram Kori v. Jajpal Singh “Jajji” is hereby dismissed.

Para-73:- The aforesaid evidence of election petitioner and his witnesses clearly indicate that the

preset petition is filed only when the election petitioner lost the election in the year 2018

objecting that the respondent No.-1 does not belong to Scheduled Caste whereas he (respondent

No.-1) contested the earlier elections in the year 2013 and also election in the year 2021 under the

same category but no objection was raised his not being the member of SC community. The

conduct of the election petitioner along with the evidence adduced by him indicate that present

petition is filed only on account of political rivalry after defeat in election of 2018 against

respondent No.-1 and for which he (respondent No.-1) has to suffer enormous amount of mental

agony. The evidence of witnesses of election petitioner indicate that the allegations without

pleadings and supporting documents were made.”

183.

It further transpires that in the case of J. Chitra versus District Collector and

Chairman, State Level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2021) 9

SCC 811 has held that ordinary residence has to be considered also at the time of deciding

the case of a person, who has migrated from other State.

184.

It has been held in the case of J. Chitra versus District Collector and Chairman,

State Level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2021) 9 SCC 811 at

Para-8 is as follows:-

Para 8:- In Dayaram, this Court was of the view that the Scrutiny Committee is an administrative

body which verifies the facts and investigates into claims of caste status. The orders of the

Scrutiny Committee are open to challenge in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. It was further held by this Court that permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals and

further appeals would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils which this Court

wanted to eradicate. It was observed that the entire scheme in Madhuri Patil will only continue till

the legislature concerned makes and appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for

caste status as SC/ST. it was made clear that verification of caste certificates issued without prior

100

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

inquiry would be verified by the Scrutiny Committees. Such of those caste certificates which

were issued after due and proper inquiry need not to be verified by the Scrutiny Committees.

185.

It has been held in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan versus State of

Maharashtra and Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 at Para nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 44, 45 and 46

which are as follows:-

Para;- 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows : the competent

authority in the present case, issued a caste certificate dated 19-10-1989, after following due

procedure, in favour of the appellant stating that he does in fact, belong to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled

Tribes). On the basis of the said certificate, the appellant was appointed as Senior Clerk in

Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) on 6-2-1990,

against the vacancy reserved for persons under the Scheduled Tribes category. The Corporation

referred the caste certificate of the appellant for the purpose of verification, to the Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Scrutiny Committee”). The

Vigilance Cell attached to the Scrutiny Committee, upon conducting vigilance enquiry vide order

dated 29-12-1998, found that the appellant did in fact belong to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes)

and thus, the said certificate was verified. The Scrutiny Committee on the basis of the said report

and also other documents filed by the appellant in support of his case, issued a validity certificate

dated 23-5-2000 to the appellant belonging to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes).

Para;- 3. After the lapse of a period of 9 years, Respondent 5 filed complaint dated 9-1-2009,

through an advocate before the Scrutiny Committee, for the purpose of recalling the said validity

certificate on the ground that the appellant had obtained employment by way of

misrepresentation, and that he does not actually belong to the Scheduled Tribes category. In fact,

the appellant professed the religion of Islam and therefore, could not be a Scheduled Tribe. The

Scrutiny Committee rejected the said application vide order dated 13-3-2009, observing that it

had no power to recall or to review a caste validity certificate, as there is no statutory provision

that provides for the same.

Para:- 6. Shri A.V. Savant, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant has submitted

that Respondent 5 does not belong to any reserved category, in fact, he belongs to the general

category and hence, he has no right or locus standi to challenge the appellant's certificate. Thus,

the High Court committed an error by directing the Scrutiny Committee to entertain the

complaint filed by Respondent 5. It has further been submitted that, despite the directions given

by this Court, the Scrutiny Committee failed to ensure compliance with the principles of natural

justice, as the appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and no order was

passed with respect to his application for recalling such witnesses for the purpose of cross-

examination, which has no doubt, resulted in the grave miscarriage of justice. The affidavit filed

by the Scrutiny Committee did not clarify, or make any specific statement with respect to whether

or not the appellant was permitted to cross-examine witnesses. It further did not clarify whether

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

101

the application dated 28-2-2012 filed by the appellant to recall witnesses for the purpose of cross-

examination, has been disposed of. Moreover, the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee

is in contravention of the statutory requirements, as have been specified under the Maharashtra

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (VimuktaJatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other

Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)

Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001) (hereinafter referred to as “the 2001

Act”) and the 2003 Rules which are framed under the 2001 Act and therefore, all proceedings

hereby stand vitiated. The appellant placed reliance upon several documents which are all very

old and, therefore, their authenticity should not have been doubted. The earlier report submitted

by the Vigilance Cell dated 29-12-1998 clearly stated that the traits and characteristics of the

appellant's family matched with those of Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). The action of

Respondent 5 is therefore completely mala fide and is intended, solely to harass the appellant, and

the High Court committed grave error in not deciding the issue related to the locus standi of

Respondent 5 in relation to him filing a complaint in the first place, as the said issue was

specifically raised by the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

Para:-7. Per contra, Shri Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel appearing for the Scrutiny

Committee, has made elaborate submissions, in support of the impugned judgment and

subsequent proceedings. Mr Udaya Kumar Sagar and Ms Bina Madhavan, learned counsel

appearing for Respondent 5, have also supported the impugned judgment [(2010) 3 Bom CR 717

: (2010) 1 Mah LJ 205] of the High Court and has further submitted that even though Respondent

5, does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, he most certainly could file a complaint

against the appellant, at such a belated stage, as the appellant had obtained employment in 1989,

by way of misrepresentation and fraud. Respondent 5, being a public-spirited person has

espoused the cause of the real persons who have been deprived of their right to be considered for

the said post occupied by the appellant. Respondent 5 has also filed affidavits of relevant persons

before the Scrutiny Committee, to prove his allegations. Thus, the present appeal lacks merit and

is liable to be dismissed.

Para:-44. The affidavit of Mr Supdu Musa Tadvi referred to hereinabove cannot be relied upon,

as the said deponent never appeared before the Scrutiny Committee. The conduct of Respondent

5, who has been pursuing the said matter from one court to another, is found to be reprehensible,

and without any sense of responsibility whatsoever, as he could not submit any satisfactory

response to the directions issued by this Court on 29- 10-2012 [AyaaubkhanNoorkhan Pathan v.

State of Maharashtra, SLP (C) No. 29472 of 2009, order dated 29-10-2012 (SC), wherein it was

directed:“Leave granted. List on 5-11-2012 for further hearing as part-heard. Meanwhile,

Respondent 5 may file the affidavit as on what date he appeared before the Scrutiny Committee

and what was the material produced by him and as to whether on that date the petitioner had a

notice of his appearance before the Scrutiny Committee and whether the Committee has allowed

the petitioner to cross-examine Respondent 5. Parties may also file written submissions, if so

advised, in the meanwhile.”] . In view of the above, we are highly doubtful as regards his bona

102

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

fides. He has, therefore, disentitled himself from appearing either before this Court, or any other

court, or committee, so far as the instant case is concerned.

Para:-45. The Scrutiny Committee in ordinary circumstances examined the matter and after

investigation through its Vigilance Cell and considering all the documentary evidence on record

and after being satisfied, granted the caste verification certificate in 2000. Section 114 Illustration

(e) of the Evidence Act provided for the court to pronounce that the decision taken by the

Scrutiny Committee has been done in regular course and the caste certificate has been issued after

due verification. Very strong material/evidence is required to rebut the presumption. In fact,

Respondent 5 has no legal peg for a justifiable claim to hang upon. Once Respondent 5, for the

reasons best known to him, had challenged caste certificate under the garb of acting as a public-

spirited person espousing the cause of legitimate persons who had been deprived of their right of

being considered for appointment, Respondent 5 must have acted seriously and brought the

material before the Scrutiny Committee to show that the earlier decision was improbable or

factually incorrect. Such a view stands fortified by a catena of decisions rendered by this Court

where it has been held that presumption is based on legal maxim omnia rite esse acta

praesumuntur i.e. all acts are presumed to have rightly and regularly been done. Such a

presumption can be rebutted by adducing appropriate evidence. Mere statement made in the

written statement/petition is not enough to rebut the presumption. The onus of rebuttal lies

upon the person who alleges that the act had not been regularly performed or the procedure

required under the law had not been followed. [Vide Gopal Narain v. State of U.P. [AIR

1964 SC 370] , Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 1 SCC 133 : 1977 SCC

(Cri) 49 : AIR 1977 SC 183] , Karewwa v. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri [(2002) 10 SCC 315 :

AIR 2002 SC 504] , Engg. Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. [(2004) 6 SCC 36 :

2004 SCC (L&S) 782], Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar [(2010) 4 SCC 653 : (2010) 2 SCC

(Cri) 904] , Punjab SEB v. Ashwani Kumar [(2010) 7 SCC 569 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ)

147], M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu [(2010) 9 SCC 712 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 907 : AIR 2011

SC 146] and R. Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala (Vigilance Deptt.) [(2011) 4 SCC 395 :

(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 251 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 691] .]

Para:-46. In view of the above discussion and considering the seriousness of the allegations, as

the Scrutiny Committee has already conducted an inquiry in relation to this matter, and the only

grievance of the appellant is that there has been non-compliance with the principles of natural

justice, and the fact that the applications filed by him were not decided upon, we direct that

before the submission of any report by the Scrutiny Committee, his application for calling the

witnesses for cross-examination must be disposed of, and the appellant must be given a fair

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been examined before the Committee. We

further direct the Scrutiny Committee to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law

thereafter. In case the Scrutiny Committee has already taken a decision, the same being violative

of the principles of natural justice, would stand vitiated.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

103

186.

It has been held in the case of Union of India and Others. Versus Dudh Nath

Prasad reported in 2000 (2) SCC 20 at para- 12, 17, 18, 28 and 29 as follows:-

“Para-12:- Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the “Note” appended

to para 5 of the “Instructions”, the term “ordinarily reside” has to be given the same meaning as

in Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and if that meaning is taken into

consideration, the respondent cannot be said to belong to the State of West Bengal and

consequently he could not take advantage of the notification by which the “Nuniya” community

was declared as a Scheduled Caste community in that State. Section 20 of the Representation of

the People Act, 1950, provides as under:

“20. Meaning of ‘ordinarily resident’.—(1) A person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily

resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of, a dwelling

house therein.

(1-A) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary residence shall not by

reason thereof cease to be ordinarily resident therein.

(1-B) A member of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State shall not during the term of his

office cease to be ordinarily resident in the constituency in the electoral roll of which he is

registered as an elector at the time of his election as such member, by reason of his absence from

that constituency in connection with his duties as such member.

(2)

A person who is a patient in any establishment maintained wholly or mainly for the

reception and treatment of persons suffering from mental illness or mental defectiveness, or who

is detained in prison or other legal custody at any place, shall not by reason thereof be deemed to

be ordinarily resident therein.

(3)

Any person having a service qualification shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident on any

date in the constituency in which, but for his having such service qualification, he would have

been ordinarily resident on that date.

(4)

Any person holding any office in India declared by the President in consultation with the

Election Commission to be an office to which the provisions of this sub-section apply shall be

deemed to be ordinarily resident on any date in the constituency in which, but for the holding of

any such office, he would have been ordinarily resident on that date.

(5)

The statement of any such person as is referred to in sub-section(3) or sub-section (4) made

in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, that but for his having the

service qualification or but for his holding any such office as is referred to in sub-section (4) he

would have been ordinarily resident in a specified place on any date, shall, in the absence of

evidence to the contrary, be accepted as correct.

104

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

(6)

The wife of any such person as is referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section(4) shall, if

she be ordinarily residing with such person, be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the

constituency specified by such person under sub-section(5).

(7)

If in any case a question arises as to whether a person is ordinarily resident at any relevant

time, the question shall be determined with reference to all the facts of the case and to such rules

as may be made in this behalf by the Central Government in consultation with the Election

Commission.

(8)

In sub-sections (3) and (5) ‘service qualification’ means—

(a)

being a member of the armed forces of the Union; or

(b)

being a member of a force to which the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950)

have been made applicable whether with or without modifications; or

(c)

being a member of an armed police force of a State, who is serving outside that State; or

(d)

being a person who is employed under the Government of India in a post outside India.”

Para-17:- The word “reside” came to be considered by this Court in Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh

[AIR 1963 SC 1521 : (1964) 2 SCR 73] in the context of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under

Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for entertaining the petition of a wife for

maintenance. After considering the meaning of the word “reside” in Oxford Dictionary, which we

have already set out above, the Court observed as under:

“The said meaning, therefore, takes in both a permanent dwelling as well as a temporary living in

a place. It is, therefore, capable of different meanings, including domicile in the strictest and the

most technical sense and a temporary residence. Whichever meaning is given to it, one thing is

obvious and it is that it does not include a casual stay in, or a flying visit to, a particular place. In

short, the meaning of the word would, in the ultimate analysis, depend upon the context and the

purpose of a particular statute. In this case the context and purpose of the present statute

certainly do not compel the importation of the concept of domicile in its technical sense.”

(emphasis supplied)

Para-18:- Considering the facts of this case in the light of the statutory provisions contained in

Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 as also the provisions contained in para

5 of the “Instructions”, since the parents of the respondent were, admittedly, residing in District

Howrah for more than 30 years, they would be treated to be “ordinarily residing” in that district

and the mere fact that they held some property in a village in District Siwan in the State of Bihar

would not affect their status.

Para-28:- In view of the above, the concept of “domicile” as canvassed by learned counsel for the

appellants with reference to change of nationality or change of domicile from one country to

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

105

another, cannot be imported in the present case. Moreover, “domicile” and “residence” are

relative concepts and have to be understood in the context in which they are used, having regard

to the nature and purpose of the statute in which these words are used. We are principally

concerned with the expression “ordinarily reside” as used in the Note to para 5 of the

“Instructions” and the expression “ordinarily resident” used in Section 20 of the Representation

of the People Act, 1950. This Act and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, both deal with

the election matters including delimitation of constituencies, right to contest the election as also

right to vote in a constituency.

Para-29:- We have already explained the meanings of the words “ordinarily resident” and have

found that notwithstanding that the parents of the respondent lived at one time in a village in

District Siwan in the State of Bihar and that they owned some property there also, they had

shifted to the State of West Bengal long ago and had been living there since then. For all intents

and purposes, therefore, they shall be treated to be “ordinarily residing” in the State of West

Bengal. For the State of West Bengal, the President, in exercise of his powers under Article

341(1) read with Article 366(24) had already declared the “Nuniya” caste as a Scheduled Caste

and, therefore, the respondent was rightly treated to be a Scheduled Caste candidate and was

rightly appointed against a reserved vacancy, after being declared successful at the examination

held by UPSC for the Indian Administrative and Allied Services [ [sic Indian Audit and Accounts

Service (IA&AS)]] in 1966.”

187.

It has been held in the case of Prashant Vidyarthy (In 4050) and Suman Kr.

Singh (In 3912) Versus State of Jharkhand and Ors. Reported in 2002 SCC Online

Jhar 1011 at para -17 to 24, 33 to 35, 80, 81, 82, 83, 94, 97 and 98 as follows:-

“Para-17:- The difficulty, however, has arisen with respect to the definition of the ‘local resident’

and the procedure prescribed for identification of such ‘local residents’.

Para-18:- The word ‘reside’ has been defined in Oxford Dictionary, to mean “dwell permanently

or for a considerable time; to have one's settled or usual abode; to live in or at a particular place.”

This meaning, therefore, covers not only the place where the person has his permanent residence,

but also the place where the person has resided for a “considerable time.”

Para-19:- In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., the word ‘reside’ has been given the following

meaning:

“Live, dwell, abide, sojourn, stay, remain, lodge. To settle oneself or a thing in a place, to be

stationed to remain or stay, to dwell permanently or continuously, to have a settled abode for a

time, to have one's residence or domicile; specifically, to be in residence, to have an abiding place

to be present as an element, to inhere as a quality to be vested as a right.”

Para- 20:- In the same Dictionary, the word ‘residence’ has been defined as under:—

106

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

“Personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal

and with pur-pose to remain for undetermined-period, not infrequently, but not necessarily

combined with design to stay permanently. Bodily presence and the intention of remaining in a

place, to sit down, to stay in a place, to settle; to remain and is made up of fact and intention, the

fact of abode and the intention of remaining, and is a combination of acts and intention.

Residence implies some thing more than mere physical presence and something less than

domicile.”

Para- 21:- What Is of paramount importance, therefore, is that intention, to stay at a particular

place for a considerably long time must/be there, as opposed to a casual visit or what is popularly

called a ‘flying visit’ or as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar referred in the Constituent Assembly as the birds

of passage without any roots, without any connection with that particular Province who just

come, apply for a post and take the plums and walk away.” In the case of Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant

Singh, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1521, their Lordships of the Supreme Court gave the following

meaning to the word ‘reside’:—

“The said meaning therefore, takes in both a permanent dwelling as well as a temporary living in

a place. It is, therefore, capable of different meanings, including domicile in the-strictest and the

most technical sense and a temporary residence. Whichever meaning is given to it, one thing is

obvious and it is that it does not include a casual stay in, or a flying visit” to, a particular place. In

short, the meaning of the word would, in the ultimate analysis depend upon the context and the

purpose of a particular statute. In this case the context and purpose of the present statute certainly

do not compel the importation of the concept of domicile in its technical sense.”.

Para- 22:- Viewed thus, the definition of the “local residents” as occurring in the impugned

Notifications appears to us to be unreasonable, arbitrary and not based on any intelligible

differentia, also not linked with any fair nexus. To recall the statement of Mr. P.P. Rao, learned

Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent-State, that a person who has been living or whose

forefathers have been living in the State for three generations, each generation of 30 years should

be eligible to be called a ‘local resident’, we feel that the State has gone too far in excluding

genuine, bona fide, and well intentioned local residents who had established themselves in the

State in the aftermath of the circumstances leading to the creation of the State as late as on 15th

November, 2000 or who had been living here for a considerable period of time even before

15.11.2000. This definition also takes away from its ambit and scope such citizens of India who

because of the unfortunate event of the Partition, of Indian Sub-continent in 1947 had to migrate

from such Indian territories which because of the event of partition had to go to the then

Dominion of Pakistan. As we made a brief reference in ah earlier part of this judgment, persons

who in or before 1947 belonged to and lived in the territories now in Bangladesh or Pakistan and

had to migrate and settle in such parts of India in 1947 itself which has now become the State of

Jharkhand, the impugned two Notifications would exclude even such persons from the definition

of ‘local resident’. To say the least, this is wholly unexplainable, untenable and runs counter to

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

107

the basic concept of citizenship as is enshrined in and attributable to Articles 5 and 6 of the

Constitution of India. Whatever be the other considerations, relevant or otherwise, no State can be

permitted to exclude from the definition of ‘local resident’ (for any purpose whatsoever) any such

person who being a citizen of India or on becoming a citizen of India in accordance with the

provisions of the Constitution or other relevant laws, has set up his residence in any part or

territory of such State, notwithstanding the fact that the period for which the residence has been

set up is shorter as compared to the natives, originals or the ab-originals. The State has to

prescribe a more meaningful, more purposeful, more rationable definition of ‘local resident’.

Para- 23:- When in the aforesaid backdrop, therefore, we examine the correctness of the two

impugned Notifications, what we find is that these Notifications in so far as the definition, of the

“local resident” and, therefore, correspondingly the procedure prescribed for obtaining the

Certificate etc. are concerned, suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, subjectivity and non-

application of mind as also hostile discrimination against such persons who otherwise have been

bona fide residents of Jharkhand State after its formation on 15th November, 2000 and even for a

considerable length of time before 15th November, 2000 when the territories now constituting

Jharkhand State were part of the erstwhile State of Bihar. By insisting upon defining “local

residents” only such persons who have been living in Jharkhand area for three generations, each

generation spanning about 25-30 years, the impugned Notifications have excluded such other

persons who have been living in Jharkhand area for, say 20 years, 30 years, 40 years or even

practically 55 years now (those who settled here consequent upon the event of partition in 1947).

We have to clearly distinguish between natives, the originals or the ab-originals on the one hand,

and the “ordinary” residents on the other. There may be classes of residents who may come in the

categories of “natives”, “originals” or “ab-originals”, but to term them alone local as “local

residents” and in the process to exclude the so-called non-natives, the so-called non-originals or

the so-called non-aboriginals who have been residing in Jharkhand for decades and decades

would clearly be a patent violation of Article 14 of the. Constitution and would also run counter

to the spirit of Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution, depriving the natural citizens of this Country

the status of “residents” in a particular State and the rights that flow from such status. After all the

persons who have been residing in Jharkhand for few decades or even few years cannot be asked

to move out of the State to other areas because there also they might face the same problem. The

concept of “local residence”, therefore, has to be made more broad based. Whereas casual

visitor or the flying bird, of course, cannot become a “local resident”; depriving, in the process,

however, even such a person who has settled his home in Jharkhand, who has made Jharkhand his

State, who has grown his roots here for years or decades, whose children were born here, who has

taken up vocations here on permanent basis by holding an employment or by being self-employed

or who has set up his business here cannot be excluded from the concept, status and definition of

“local resident” because excluding him, perhaps, might drive out millions and millions of people

from the State, in the process rendering them homeless, what in other term is called “refugees”.

We, therefore, have no doubt whatsoever in our minds that the definition of “local residents” in

108

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

the two impugned Notifications is too narrow, too pedantic, too constricted and so arbitrary that

on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it must fall.

Para- 24:- We have also to draw a clear distinction between regular bona fide residents in a place

and what Dr. Ambedkar referred to as “mere birds of passage” or such persons “who are flying

from one Province to another, from one State to another” but “without any roots, without any

connection with that particular province, just to come, apply for posts and, so to say, take the

plums and walk away.” The former are those who live here in a regular and usual manner who

have chosen this place as their abode, who give birth to, and rear their children here and who

have developed a social, cultural and personal ties with the people and the place and whose

relationship here over a period of time becomes so well entrenched and deep-rooted that this

becomes their permanent home. In the former category also are those persons who have

developed interest, everlasting and deep-rooted, at social and cultural levels as well as have inter-

linked themselves inextricably with their commerce, business, vocations, profession or job-

orientation. The former category, therefore, by no stretch of imagination can be excluded from

the definition of ‘local resident’. It is the latter category alone which may be termed as non-

locals.

Para-33:- The Committee noticed that the Jharkhand region is comprised of Chhotanagpur

Plateau and the Santhal Paraganas covering an area of 1.90 lakhs square K.Ms, having population

of 1.80 crores according to 1981 Census. The overall per. centage of Tribal was 30.26% ranging

from 9% to 15% in Hazaribagh, Dhanbad, Deoghar and Giridih Districts; from 16% to 30% in

Palamau and Godda District; from 30% to 50% in Ranchi, Singhbhum, Dumka and Sahebganj

Districts; and 59% in Lohardaga, as well as 74% in Gumla-districts.

Para- 34:- In Chhotanagpur, the concept of ‘Sadan’ has been applied to cover all sections of non-

tribals, except those who have come recently. The termology. ‘Sadan’ is used for ‘Sadavasi’;

“Anadivasi” and so on, to trace their status as very old inhabitants, as old as Tribals themselves.

They are called “Mulvasis”.

Para- 35:- The contempt of non-tribal ‘Sadan’ is not there in Santhal Parganas or in adjoining

areas of Orissa, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh, though they were in sympathy with the

demand for autonomy. The Committee reported that the concept of the ‘son of the soil’ had not

crystallized (as in May, 1990), though there were demands that those who came to Chhotanagpur,

Santhal Parganas region after the last revisional settlement, should be declared as ‘outsiders’.

Some people demanded that the dividing line should be the year of independence.

Para- 80:- In the case of Union of India v. Dudhnath Prasad, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 20 : AIR

2000 SC 525 : [2001 (1) PUR (SC) 71], the Supreme Court held that the concept of domicile

cannot be used for determining ‘ordinary residence’.

Para- 81:- The Court further observed that etymologically ‘residence’ and ‘domicile’ carry the

same meaning, inasmuch as both refer to ‘permanent home’, but under the Private International

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

109

Law ‘domicile’ carries a little difference cone and except the many facets. ‘Domicile’ and

‘Residence’ are relative concepts and have to be understood in the context of knowledge they are

used, having regard to the nature and purpose of statute in which these words are used.

Para- 82:- The word ‘residence’ has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “dwelt

permanently or for a considerable time to have once settled or usually abode; to live in or at a

particular place.”

Para- 83:- In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court held that the meaning of ‘residence’ therefore,

covers not only the place where the person has a permanent residence but also the place where the

person has resided for a ‘considerable time’.

Para-94:- The guidelines prescribed under Resolution No. 05/vividh-09/2001/Ka-4737 dated:

19th August, 2002 is mainly based on records of right or on the identification by five khatiyanis

i.e. those whose or their ancestors, names are appearing in the records of right. They will give

certificate to the effect that the concerned person is residing in the area for generation after

generation (Pirhi dar Pirhi). 95. According to the petitioners the criteria for determination of

‘local persons’ on the basis of last survey records of right is itself, arbitrary and strikes at the very

route (sic—root?) of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is unreasonable having no nexus

with the object sought to be achieved.

Para- 97:- According to him, survey was made under Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act for the

Chhotanagpur area/region and under Regulation-III of 1872 for the Santhal Parganas. In the

Santhal Parganas region of Jharkhand, the records of rights have been prepared on the basis of

report prepared by J.F. Gantzer popularly known as Gantzer's Report. The survey operation

commenced in October, 1922 and concluded in February, 1935 excluding the following areas:

(i)

“Sauria Paharia hills of the Rajmahal and Godda Sub division.

(ii)

The “Ganges Diara Trackts” of Rajmahal.

(iii)

The Municipal Town of Dumka, Sahebganj, Deoghar, and

(iv)

The Jungle Trackts of Santhal. Pargana.

Para-98:- Thus, if the definition of ‘local persons’ is based on last survey records of rights, the

Santhals of Raj Mahal, Godda, Dumka, Sahebganj, Deoghar and Madhupur never be able, to

secure certificates of ‘local persons’, though they are the original inhabitants of Jharkhand.”

188.

The Judgment reported in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste

Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and

Another Versus Union of India and Another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244 and in the case

of Bir Singh Versus Delhi Jal Board and Others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 relates to

definition of temporary residence. In the above cases, all the applicants were temporarily

110

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

residence and were claiming the Caste Certificate for securing Educational studies on account

of posting of their father in the State of Mumbai.

Therefore, the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court had declined the

relief by observing that a person, who has migrated from one State to another State

temporarily for the purpose of employment and study, cannot be given benefit of reservation

of latter State and they will be entitled to reservation in their parent State. However, in the

present case, the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has been born and brought up to Ranchi in

the year 1962, he has asserted and proved that he was born on 23.06.1962 at Ranchi and he

had completed his educational status from Ranchi by passing Matriculation examination in

the year 1979, BA in 1983 and MA in 1985 and has produced all the Original Documents of

his Educational Qualification as well as Certificate of NCC and also receipt of Ranchi

Employment Exchange issued in the year 1985, which clearly reveal that the Respondent No.

1, Smmari Lal is also a permanent resident of Ranchi, (which was part of erstwhile State of

Bihar now Jharkhand) and even their ancestors were residing in Ranchi.

189.

It has been held in the case of Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Versus Naresh K.

Shigaonkar reported in 2009 (9) SCC 310 at para-57, 58, 59 and 61 as follows:-

“Para-57:- It is settled legal position that all “material facts” must be pleaded by the party in

support of the case set up by him within the period of limitation. Since the object and purpose is

to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a

party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact will entail

dismissal of the election petition. The election petition must contain a concise statement of

“material facts” on which the petitioner relies.

Para-58:- There is no definition of “material facts” either in the Representation of the People

Act, 1951 nor in the Code of Civil Procedure. In a series of judgments, this Court has laid down

that all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action should be termed as “material

facts”. All basic and primary facts which must be proved by a party to establish the existence of

cause of action or defence are material facts. “Material facts” in other words mean the entire

bundle of facts which would constitute a complete cause of action. This Court in Harkirat Singh

case [(2005) 13 SCC 511] tried to give various meanings of “material facts”. The relevant para 48

of the said judgment is reproduced as under: (SCC pp. 526-27)

“48. The expression ‘material facts’ has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Code.

According to the dictionary meaning, ‘material’ means ‘fundamental’, ‘vital’, ‘basic’, ‘cardinal’,

‘central’, ‘crucial’, ‘decisive’, ‘essential’, ‘pivotal’, ‘indispensable’, ‘elementary’ or ‘primary’.

[Burton's Legal Thesaurus (3rd Edn.), p. 349.] The phrase ‘material facts’, therefore, may be said

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

111

to be those facts upon which a party relies for its claim or defence. In other words, ‘material

facts’ are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defence depends.

What particulars could be said to be ‘material facts’ would depend upon the facts of each case

and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It is, however, absolutely essential that all

basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish the existence of

a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleading by the party.”

Para-59:- In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, “material facts” would mean all basic

facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner

(the respondent herein) is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. It is also

well settled that if “material facts” are missing they cannot be supplied after expiry of period of

limitation for filing the election petition and the pleading becomes deficient.

Para-61:- The legal position has been crystallised by a series of the judgments of this Court that

all those facts which are essential to clothe the election petitioner with a complete cause of action

are “material facts” which must be pleaded, and the failure to place even a single material fact

amounts to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a) of the Act.”

190.

It has been held in the case of Smt. Saroja Devi Gupta Vs. Smt. Aruna Jaiswal

reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 755 at para-20 to 26 as follows:-

“Para-20:- Similarly in the matter of Jaipal Singh v. Sumitra Mahajan (Smt.)³, again their

Lordships of the Supreme Court have emphasized the importance of specific pleadings and held

as under:—

“7. Section 83 deals with contents of petition. It states that an election petition shall contain

a concise statement of material facts, on which the petitioner relies and shall state full

particulars of any corrupt practices which petitioner alleges and which shall be signed by

him and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, it has been held that the Order VI

Rule 2(1) of CPC deals with basic rule of pleadings and declares that the pleading has to

state material facts and not the evidence; that there is a distinction between material facts

and not the evidence; that there is a distinction between’ material facts’ and ‘particulars’

and the words ‘material facts’ show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause

of action must be stated. Omission of single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of

action and consequently, the plaint becomes bad.”

Para-21:- In the matter of Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shiqaonkar⁴, their

Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the words “material facts and material

particulars” held as under:—

“57. It is settled legal position that all “material facts” must be pleaded by the party in

support of the case set up by him within the period of limitation. Since the object and

112

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence

of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single

material fact will entail dismissal of the election petition. The election petition must

contain a concise statement of “material facts” on which the petitioner relies.”

60. According to the appellant, in the election petition, there was no averment whether the

bore wells were dug with the consent and/or active knowledge of the appellant. This

averment was absolutely imperative and the failure to mention such an important averment

in the petition is fatal for the election-petitioner (respondent herein) and the election

petition is liable to be summarily dismissed on that ground.

61. The legal position has been crystallized by a series of the judgments of this Court that

all those facts which are essential to clothe the election petitioner with a complete cause of

action are “material facts” which must be pleaded, and the failure to plead even a single

material facts amounts to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a) of the Act.”

Para-22:- Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Meshram v. Vanshmani

Prasad Verma⁵ has held as under:—

“16. The trial of an election petition, as per Section 87 of 1951 Act has to be in accordance

with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. When no pleadings that the

election of the returned candidate was void on the grounds mentioned in Section 100(1)(A)

were made and no issue on this score was struck and no opportunity to the returned

candidate to adduce relevant evidence was afforded, the High Court, in our considered

view, could not have found that the election of the returned candidate was void under

Section 100(1)(a).

17. In view of the state of the pleadings as noticed above; the issues framed and the

evidence led by the parties, we cannot agree with the High Court that the respondent-

election petitioner has made out a case for declaration that the result of the election in

favour of the returned candidate was void under Section 100(1)(a) of the 1951 Act. Having

reached our conclusion on above said basis, it is not necessary to go into the question

raised on behalf of the respondent-election petitioner that failure to produce the copy of the

electoral roll of the constituency in which a candidate is a voter or a certified copy thereof,

by itself, would amount to a proof of lack of/absence of qualification under Section 5 of the

1951 Act. All that would be necessary for us to say in this regard is that any such view

would not to consistent with the legislative intent expressed by the enactment of two

separate and specific provisions contained in Section 100(1)(a) and 100(1)(d) of the 1951

Act.”

Para-23:- The Supreme Court in the matter of Sadashiv H. Patil v. Vithal D. Teke⁶ had

clearly held that election law has to be construed strictly and observed as under:—

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

113

“14. A finding as to disqualification under the Act has the effect of unseating a person from

an elected office held by him pursuant to his victory at the polls in accordance with the

democratic procedure of constituting a local authority. The consequences befall not only

him as an individual but also the constituency represented by him which would cease to be

represented on account of his having been disqualified. Looking at the penal

consequences flowing from an elected councillor being subjected to disqualification and its

repercussion on the functioning of the local body as also the city or township governed by

the local body the provisions have to be construed strictly..A rigorous compliance with the

provisions of the Act and the Rules must be shown to have taken place while dealing with

a reference under Section 7 of the Act.”

Para-24:- Reverting to the facts of the present'case in light of the principle of laid down by the

Supreme Court in the afore-cited cases and considering the para materia provisions of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951, it is quite vivid that the election petitioner herein did not

expressly plead that respondent No. 1 was the OBC (Female) in the State of Madhya Pradesh and

she was not the OBC (Female) candidate of the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, she was not

qualified, to be chosen as President of Nagfer Panchayat, Pendra; the petitioner also failed to

establish by improper acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 1, result of the

election, id so far as it concerns to the returned candidate, has been materially affected; the

petitioner only pleaded that caste certificate (Ex. P-7) issued to respondent No. 1 was on the basis

of caste of her husband whereas it ought to have been on the basis of her father, and the caste

certificate ought to have been issued after making enquiry from the State of Madhya Pradesh. As

per law laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore-cited judgments read with Section 20(5) of

the Act of 1961; it ought to have been specifically pleaded by the election petitioner that

respondent No. 1 did not belong to OBC (Female) candidate of the State of Chhattisgarh and she

is only OBC (Female) of State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the was not qualified to be chosen

as President in the State of Chhattisgarh. Even the petitioner did raise an objection before the;

Returning Officer but again she has simply pleaded that caste certificate has been issued on the

basis of caste of her husband, which, is contrary to law, She never pleaded either before the

returning officer or before the Election Tribunal that respondent No. 1 herein was OBC (female)

candidate of the State at Madhya Pradesh and she is not the OBC (female) candidate of State of

Chhattisgarh and, therefore, she was not qualified to be chosen as President of Nagar Panchayat,

Pendra.

Para-25:- As such, the election petitioner has failed to plead and establish the grounds which she

has urged before this Court that respondent No. 1 was not the OBC (Female) candidate belonging

to the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, she was not entitled to contest the election for the post of

President Nagar Panchayat, Pendra. She has only pleaded that the caste certificate issued by the

competent authority/State of Chhattisgarh was not in accordance with law, therefore, she was not

qualified to contest the election of the president, Nagar Panchayat, Pendra as held by their

Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sadashiv H. Patif (supra) that election law has to

114

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

be pcinstnied??? strictly and strict pleading and the clinching evidence is required toflstablish the

said ground.

Para-26:- Further, the judgment cited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case

of Bir Singh¹ (supra) is not applicable in the instant case, as in the instant case there is complete

lack of pleading and grounds which she has urged before this Court and the said ground was even

not taken specifically either before the Returning Officer or before the Election Tribunal.”

191.

Although a series of Judgment have been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1,

but the same are not being discussed as it is not relevant to deicide the present case and it will

also amount to wastage of time. In Above Judgment passed by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh

High Court at Gwalior Bench, it has been held that the Caste Certificate cannot be decided

the subject matter of Election Petition.

192.

In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the opinion that as because

the ancestors (i.e. grand-father and father) of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal were

brought from Rajasthan to Ranchi (erstwhile State of Bihar now Jharkhand) by British

Administration, the provisions of presidential order published in Gazette of India

extraordinary, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 will not be applicable in the

case of the Respondent No. 1 as the above the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950

marked as Ext.-18/09 that it will be applicable on the persons staying temporary in the

concerned through migrated State (S) after 10.08.1950 as well as 28.10.1956 respectively.

193.

Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore Versus

Arun Dattatray Sawant and Ors. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 162 and in the case of Bir

Singh Versus Delhi Jal Board and Others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 has held that the

Presidential Order i.e. the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 will be relevant from

the date of issuance of Gazette Notification.

194.

It further transpires that the petitioner has failed to examine any independent

witness(es) except the Election Agent (i.e. P.W.-2, Gulzar Ahmad) to prove that the father of

the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal had come to Ranchi from erstwhile State of Bihar for the

purpose of employment and job in RMCH, Ranchi.

This Court finds that the Election Agent (P.W.-2, Gulzar Ahmad) is an interested

persons as he was employed by the petitioner for performing his duties and as such, the

Election Agent i.e. P.W.-2, Gulzar Ahmad is under the influence of the Election-Petitioner.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

115

195.

On the other hand the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has examined the number of

witnesses i.e. D.W.-1 Dilip Ram, D.W.-2 Jugal Ram, D.W.-3 Gulabiya Devi, D.W.-4 Sajna

Ram, D.W.-5 Binod Ram, S/o Bannu Ram, D.W.-6 Krishna Ram, D.W.-7 Tikam Chand

Pawar, D.W.-8 Basant Ram, D.W.-9 Anand Kumar Balmiki, D.W.-10 Binod Ram, S/o

Baiju Ram, D.W.-11 Parbhati Ram, D.W.-12 Bhagi Ram to prove that his ancestors (i.e.

his grand-father and father) had arrived to Ranchi (erstwhile State of Bihar) since before the

independence i.e. before 15th August, 1947 from State of Rajasthan by the British People for

doing cleaning work (it is hazardous work for cleaning) in Ranchi and his ancestors were

residing since before the independence in Ranchi, which was erstwhile part of State of Bihar

(now Jharkhand). Therefore, grand- father, Janki Ram and father of the Respondent No. 1,

Mishri Lal Balmiki were permanent resident of Ranchi, [which was part of erstwhile State of

Bihar (now Jharkhand)] before issuance of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950

in the above order marked as Ext.-18/09.

196.

It is evident that the Caste of the Respondent No. 1 at Serial No. 11 in the

erstwhile State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). Even subsequently the Constitution Order was

modified by the another Gazette Notification dated 28.10.1956 with regard to the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956, Group/Clause of persons

mentioned in Scheduled Caste remains the same and serial no. 11 shows the caste Mehtar.

Hence, this Court is of the view that the ancestors of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal were

the permanent residence of Bihar as there was no chance of their going back in those days,

who were brought from Rajasthan to Ranchi by the British People since before the

Independence.

197.

The petitioner has further failed to produce any witness to show that the ancestors

of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal were the permanent residence of Rajasthan and no

documentary evidence for example Caste Register for any documentary evidence was

produced before this Court. The petitioner has relied upon the report of the Circle Officer by

submitting that there is no evidence to show that the ancestors of the Respondent No. 1,

Smmari Lal had arrived from Rajasthan to Ranchi. However, this Court on perusal of Ext.-19

and Ext.-19/1 and Ext. 19/2 respectively finds that Circle Inspector during making local

inspection had observed and pointed out that Balmiki people during the course of inspection

had informed him that the ancestors of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal were brought

from Rajasthan to Ranchi, but this was completely ignored by the Circle Officer by sending

the letter dated 09.12.2020 to the Deputy Collector (In-charge).

116

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

198.

D.W.-1, Dilip Ram, D.W.-2, Jugal Ram, D.W.-3, Gulabiya Devi, D.W.-4, Sajna

Ram, D.W.-5, Binod Ram, S/o Bannu Ram, D.W.-6, Krishna Ram, D.W.-7, Tikam Chand

Pawar, D.W.-8, Basant Ram, D.W.-9, Anand Kumar Balmiki, D.W.-10, Binod Ram, S/o

Baiju Ram, D.W.-11, Parbhati Ram, D.W.-12 , Bhagi Ram have not been confronted on

behalf of the petitioner on the point as to when the grand-father, Janki Ram or father (Mishri

Lal Balmiki) of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal had arrived at Ranchi.

199.

The order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 01.04.2022 is Annexure-

2 of the Ext.-7 whereby the Caste Certificate of the Respodent No. 1, Smmari Lal has been

cancelled. Although the above order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Rajesh Shankar) of this Court and the matter is sub judice before the members of the Caste

Scrutiny Committee. Hence, this Court refrains from giving any observation. However, it is

evident that even while passing the order dated 01.04.2022 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee,

reasonable opportunity was not given to the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal to produce his

witness and documents.

From perusal of order dated 01.04.2022 (i.e. Annexure-2 of Ext.-7) and Ext.-5

containing the Annexures- SA/1, SA/2, SA/3, it appears that the Respondent No. 1, Smmari

Lal had applied before Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi on 01.04.2021 for residential

proof and also vide Letter No. 1038 dated 08.04.2021 for service book of his father through

RTI from RIMS, Ranchi, but the same have not been supplied to the Respondent No. 1,

Smmari Lal on the ground of its non-availability, which is surprising. However, on the other

hand, his case has been rejected by the members of the Caste Scrutiny Committee for not

producing the evidence.

Therefore, it is evident that the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has not been given proper

opportunity even before the Caste Scrutiny Committee to produce its supportive evidence.

200.

It also appears that the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has filed service book of

Gulabia Devi, who has been examined as DW-3 before this Court, but even the Respondent

No. 1, Smmari Lal was not permitted to examine the said Gulabia Devi and prove his service

book maintained by the Ranchi Municipal Commissionery for the period 1951 to 1968 and

this depicts that the proper opportunity was not given to the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal to

prove his case.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

117

201.

Had, Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal given opportunity to produce service book of

his father, who was working in RIMS, Ranchi at the relevant time through the means of RTI,

he would have been rebutted the case of the petitioner by showing that his father was resident

of Ranchi and was a member of Scheduled Caste, but Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal was

deprived of such opportunity by required documents by officials of the State Governments.

202.

Even during course of hearing before this Court, neither the said Circle Inspector

nor the said Circle Officer, Bargain nor the Deputy Collector (In-charge), Ranchi were

examined as witness on behalf of the petitioner to prove the said report of Circle Inspector

and Circle Officer, which have been marked as Ext.-19 and Ext.-19/1 respectively.

203.

The petitioner has failed to show that father of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal

had ever gone to the State of Rajasthan for taking the benefit of Reservation for their personal

gain. It is onus upon the petitioner to proof that the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal is

permanent resident of Rajasthan and as such, burden of proof lies upon the petitioner to

prove the above fact. However, the petitioner, during his evidence, failed to produce any

witness or documents to show that the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal had gone to Rajasthan

and had taken benefit of reservation in Rajasthan for employment himself.

204.

Thus, the petitioner has completely failed to prove his case on this aspect whereas

on the other hand, the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal has produced D.W.-1, Dilip Ram,

D.W.-2, Jugal Ram, D.W.-3, Gulabiya Devi, D.W.-4, Sajna Ram, D.W.-5, Binod Ram, S/o

Bannu Ram, D.W.-6, Krishna Ram, D.W.-7, Tikam Chand Pawar, D.W.-8, Basant Ram,

D.W.-9, Anand Kumar Balmiki, D.W.- 10, Binod Ram, S/o Baiju Ram, D.W.-11, Parbhati

Ram, D.W.-12 , Bhagi Ram, D.W.-13, Brij Kishore Viyay, D.W.-17, Kund Chandra Mehta in

support of his contention and which could not be rebutted on behalf of the petitioner except

mere asking them for not filing the documentary evidence for residential proof of ancestors

of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal.

205.

Thus, Issue no. VII, VIII and XI are decided in favour of Respondent no. 1

Smmari Lal.

Issue No. VI, X and XIII:-

206.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Respondent no. 2 Smmari

Lal has illegally allowed the Respondent no. 1 to contest from Kanke (SC) Constitutency by

accepting his nomination paper. It is submitted that Respondent No. 1 Smmari Lal has not

118

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

mentioned his caste in the nomination paper filed by him whereas, the petitioner has filed his

Caste Certificate and described his caste as ‘Dhobi’ in his nomination paper. It is further

asserted that even the local inspection, it was found that there was no evidence of ancestors of

Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal coming to Ranchi since before independence and hence,

Respondent No. 2 has illegally accepted the nomination paper of the petitioner and allowed

the respondent to contest Kanke-65 Kanke Constituency which is mainly for the member of

Scheduled Caste.

It is further submitted that the Respondent no. 2 has illegally accepted the

nomination paper of the Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal in contravention of Section 33 and

Section 36 of the R.P. Act.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has asserted that he has also

filed the Caste Certificate with the nomination paper at the time of filing his nomination. It is

submitted that the provisions of Section 33 and 36 of R.P Act has also been complied with.

207.

In this regard, it will be relevant to refer firstly to the evidence of DW-15 (A)

Manoj Ranjan who has stated during his evidence that he accepted the nomination paper of

Respondent No. 1 Smmari Lal in the light of Handbook of the Returning Officer. He has

asserted that he had examined the Caste Certificate of Respondent No. 1 Smmari Lal as per

Handbook of the Returning Officer and had found it to be valid. He had also forwarded

objection raised by the petitioner Suresh Kumar Baitha to Smmari Lal i.e. Respondent No. 1

and asked him to submit his reply at 3 PM on the same date i.e. on 25.11.2019 and after

receiving reply and hearing both the parties, in presence of their counsel and also after

verifying the Caste Certificate from Issuing Authority, he overruled the objection and had

accepted the nomination paper of Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal

During cross-examination, he admitted that he had sought verification of Caste

Certificate from Circle Office, Sadar, Ranchi who was the Issuing Authority and Peon had

taken the Caste Certificate for verification and he had received the verification report before

3 PM.

208.

Thus, evidence of DW-15 (A) mainly lies on the fact that he had accepted the

nomination paper in the light of ‘Handbook’ given to the Returning Officer. It appears that

the Handbook of Returning Officer have been issued by the Election Commissioner of India

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

119

and the same has not been marked as Exhibit on behalf of the petitioner or also on behalf of

the Respondent no. 1 Smmari Lal.

209.

It has been held in the case of Rajendra Kr. Meshram Versus Vanshmani

Prasad Verma and Another reported in 2016 (10) SCC 715 at para-16 to 19 as follows:-

“Para-16:- The trial of an election petition, as per Section 87 of the 1951 Act has to be in

accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. When no pleadings that the

election of the returned candidate was void on grounds mentioned in Section 100(1)(a) were

made and no issue on this score was struck and no opportunity to the returned candidate to

adduce relevant evidence was afforded, the High Court, in our considered view, could not have

found that the election of the returned candidate was void under Section 100(1)(a). In fact, from a

reading of Para 1.11 of the election petition as extracted above, it clearly appears that the election

petitioner had stated that the appellant returned candidate is a voter of No. 80 Singrauli

Constituency but he had omitted to enclose the electoral roll or a certified copy thereof along

with his nomination papers which made him ineligible to contest the election. This part of the

pleading must be seen in the light of the provisions of Sections 33(4) and 33(5) of the 1951 Act.

Para-17:- Under Section 33(4) the Returning Officer must satisfy himself that a candidate's name

and electoral roll number is the same as claimed/entered in the nomination paper. If the candidate

is a voter of the same constituency from which he seeks election, there is no difficulty the

electoral rolls would be readily available with the Returning Officer. But if the candidate is a

voter of another constituency, then Section 33(5) requires him to enclose along with the

nomination or at the time of scrutiny, the electoral roll or certified copy of the same pertaining to

that constituency. The entire case of the election petitioner as pleaded is that the appellant

returned candidate was a voter of another constituency i.e. No. 80 Singrauli Constituency but he

had not enclosed or produced the electoral roll of that constituency or a certified copy thereof

thereby making him ineligible to contest the election.

Para-18:- In view of the state of the pleadings as noticed above; the issues framed and the

evidence led by the parties, we cannot agree with the High Court that the respondent election

petitioner had made out a case for declaration that the result of the election in favour of the

returned candidate was void under Section 100(1)(a) of the 1951 Act. Having reached our

conclusion on the abovesaid basis, it is not necessary to go into the question raised on behalf of

the respondent election petitioner that failure to produce the copy of the electoral roll of the

constituency in which a candidate is a voter or a certified copy thereof, by itself, would amount to

a proof of lack of/absence of qualification under Section 5 of the 1951 Act. All that would be

necessary for us to say in this regard is that any such view would not be consistent with the

legislative intent expressed by the enactment of two separate and specific provisions contained in

Sections 100(1)(a) and 100(1)(d) of the 1951 Act.

120

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

Para-19:- Though a number of precedents have been cited on behalf of the respondent election

petitioner to sustain the arguments advanced, it will not be necessary for us to take any specific

note of the principles of law laid down in any of the said cases inasmuch as all the said cases

relate to rejection of nominations on account of failure to comply with the provisions of Section

33(5) of the 1951 Act which is not in issue before us in the present appeal.”

210.

It has been held in the case of Ganu Ram versus Rikhi Ram Kaundal and Others

reported in (1984) 3 SCC 649 at Para nos. 6, 7 and 8 which are as follows:-

Para 6:- It is manifest that the legislative purpose underlying sub- section (2) of Section 33 of the

Act is that when a nomination paper is filed in respect of a reserved seat in any constituency there

must be a clear specification by the candidate of the particular caste or tribe to which he belongs

and the area in relation to which that caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe of the

State. This requirement is fully satisfied in the present case because by producing the certificate

of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as an annexure to his nomination paper the appellant had clearly

made it known that he was filing the nomination as a candidate belonging to the “Lohar” caste,

which is admittedly a Scheduled Caste in the entirely of the area of the State of Himachal

Pradesh. It is also significant that no objection whatever was raised against the nomination filed

by the appellant at the time of scrutiny. The Returning Officer had published a notice of

nominations under Section 35 of the Act and in the said notice it was expressly stated that the

appellant had filed hi nomination as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste namely

‘Lohar’. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position as

explained above, we consider that the High Court was in error in holding that the nomination

paper filed by the appellant was not valid and its acceptance by the Returning Officer was

improper.

Para 7:- A faint attempt was made before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

first respondent to make out that the finding entered by the High Court that the appellant does, in

fact, belong to the Scheduled Caste “Lohar” is erroneous and unsupported by the evidence but we

see no merit at all in the said contention. The said finding recorded by the High Court is hereby

confirmed.

Para 8:- The conclusion that emerges from the foregoing discussion is that the High Court was

not justified in setting aside the election of the appellant on the ground that the nomination paper

filed by the appellant was invalid. It follows that this appeal has to be allowed and the order of

the High Court invalidating the election of the appellant has to be set aside.

211.

It has been held in the case of Santosh Yadav Versus Narendra Singh reported in

2002 (1) SCC 160 at para- 15 and 16 as follows:-

“Para-15:- A word about the pleadings. Section 83 of the Act mandates an election petition to

contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. The rules of

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

121

pleadings enable a civil dispute being adjudicated upon by a fair trial and reaching a just decision.

A civil trial, more so when it relates to an election dispute, where the fate not only of the parties

arrayed before the court but also of the entire constituency is at a stake, the game has to be played

with open cards and not like a game of chess or hide and seek. An election petition must set out

all material facts wherefrom inferences vital to the success of the election petitioner and enabling

the court to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner can be drawn subject to the averments

being substantiated by cogent evidence. Concise and specific pleadings setting out all relevant

material facts, and then cogent affirmative evidence being adduced in support of such averments,

are indispensable to the success of an election petition. An election petition, if allowed, results in

avoiding an election and nullifying the success of a returned candidate. It is a serious remedy.

Therefore, an election petition seeking relief on a ground under Section 100(1)(d) of the Act,

must precisely allege all material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of the plea that the

result of the election has been materially affected. Unfortunately in the present case all such

material facts and circumstances are conspicuous by their absence.

Para-16:_ The law as regards the result of election having been materially affected in case of

improper acceptance of nomination may be summed up as under:

A case of result of the election, insofar as it concerns the returned candidate, having been

materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination, within the meaning of Section

100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has to be made out by raising specific

pleadings setting out all material facts and adducing cogent evidence so as to enable a clear

finding being arrived at on the distribution of wasted votes, that is, the manner in which the votes

would have been distributed if the candidate, whose nomination paper was improperly accepted,

was not in the fray.

Merely because the wasted votes are more than the difference of votes secured by the

returned candidate and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes, an inference as to

the result of the election having been materially affected cannot necessarily be drawn. The issue

is one of fact and the onus of proving it lies upon the petitioner.

The burden of proving such material effect has to be discharged by the election petitioner

by adducing positive, satisfactory and cogent evidence. If the petitioner is unable to adduce such

evidence the burden is not discharged and the election must stand. This rule may operate harshly

upon the petitioner seeking to set aside the election on the ground of improper acceptance of a

nomination paper, but the court is not concerned with the inconvenience resulting from the

operation of the law. Difficulty of proof cannot obviate the need of strict proof or relax the rigour

of required proof.

The burden of proof placed on the election petitioner is very strict and so difficult to

discharge as nearing almost an impossibility. There is no room for any guesswork, speculation,

surmises or conjectures i.e. acting on a mere possibility. It will not suffice merely to say that all

122

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

or the majority of wasted votes might have gone to the next highest candidate. The law requires

proof. How far that proof should go or what it should contain is not provided by the legislature.

The casting of votes at an election depends upon a variety of factors and it is not possible

for anyone to predicate how many or which proportion of the votes will go to one or the other of

the candidates. It is not permissible to accept the “ipse dixit” of witnesses coming from one side

or the other to say that all or some of the votes would have gone to one or the other on some

supposed or imaginary ground.”

212.

However, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent no. 2 had filed the copy of original Handbook issued by the Election

Commissioner of India for the election scheduled to be held in the year 2019.

213.

It will be relevant to refer Clause 5.11.1, Clause 6.10 of hand book of election

paper which reads as follows:-

Clause- 5.11.1 As each nomination paper is filed, Returning Officer or the Specified Returning

Officer, as the case may be, is required by law to examine it then and there from the technical

standpoint as required under Section 33(4) of the Act of 1951. But Returning Officer is not

required to hold any formal scrutiny of any nomination papers at this stage. This preliminary

examination is restricted to entries relating to the name and electoral roll details relation to the

candidate and the proposer(s) as given in the nomination paper (s) and those as entered in the

electoral roll. The following aspects may be examined at this stage:

(i)

if the candidate is an elector in Returning Officer’s constituency, he should compare the

entries in the nomination paper with the entries in the electoral roll relating to the serial number

and name of the candidate and his proposer/s.

(ii)

If he comes from another constituency, Returning Office or the Specified Assistant

Returning Officer should compare the entries in the nomination paper with the entry relating to

the

candidate’s name in the electoral roll of the constituency or the relevant part thereof or certified

copy of such entry filed by him. The candidate is required by law to produce before Returning

Officer or the Specified Assistant Returning Officer such electoral roll or the relevant part thereof

or a certified copy of relevant entries thereof [Section 33{5}].

(iii)

Make sure that the electoral roll with which Returning Officer or the Specified Assistant

Returning Officer makes such comparison is the one currently in force for the constituency in

either case.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

123

(iv)

Check whether the affidavit in revised Form 26 is duly filled up and attached along with

the nomination paper. If not attached, Returning Officer or the Specified Assistant Returning

Officer should bring it to his notice this requirement through a notice by way of the check list.

(v)

Check whether all columns of the affidavit are filled up, as incomplete affidavits are liable

to be rejected leading to rejection of nomination paper. In case any of the columns are left blank

by the candidate, Returning Officer or the Specified Assistant Returning Officer will mention

it in the checklist and hand it over to the candidate against proper receipt. In such cases the

candidate will have opportunity to file a fresh candidate complete in all respects by the time fixed

for commencement of scrutiny. Clause- 6.10 Returning Officer must reject a nomination paper, if

(i)

the candidate is clearly not qualified in law to be a member of the Legislature concerned,

(ii)

the candidate is clearly disqualified in law to be such member, or

[N.B. As regards the persons who have been disqualified under Section 8A and 11A(b) (for

corrupt practices) and 10-A (for failure to lodge account of election expenses) for the said Act,

1951, there would be a list of such disqualified persons. Returning Officer should obtain the list

from CEO]. Complaints regarding other disqualifications, Returning Officer has to decide based

on summary inquiry.

(iii)

Requirements of Section 33 of R.P. Act, 1951 are not fulfilled.

(iv)

The prescribed affidavit has not been filed at all by the candidate, or [N.B. if the prescribed

affidavit has been filed but are alleged or found to be defective or containing false information,

the nomination should NOT be rejected on the ground.]

(v)

The nomination paper has not been signed by the candidate and/or by the required number

of his propers(s), or

(vi)

The proper deposit has nto been made in accordance with Section 34, or

(vii) The oath or affirmation is not made by the candidate as required under the Constitution of

India, Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 or the Government of National Capital

Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, as the case may be, or

(viii) The candidate does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe and he has

filed nomination paper to contest a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be,

the Scheduled Tribes, or

(ix)

Where the candidate is not an elector of the constituency for which he has filed nomination

paper and he has neither filed a copy of the electoral roll of the constituency in which he is

registered as an elector or of the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries

124

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

relating to his name in such electoral roll along with the nomination paper nor produced the same

at the time of scrutiny as required under Section 33{5} of the said Act.

(x)

Columns were left blank in the affidavit and fresh affidavit not filed in spite of notice.

Note on item (viii): In order to prevent non-SC/ST persons contesting election from reserved

constituencies, the Returning Officers at the time of scrutiny of nominations should satisfy

themselves that the candidates constesting from reserved constituencies belong to SC or ST, as

the case may be. Wherever in doubt, the Returning Officer must insist on production of SC/ST

certificate issued by competenet authorities. Where, however, the certificate produced by the

candidate is also challenged, the Returning Officer need not go into that question, except where it

is alleged that the certificate produced is forged or is not issued by competent authority. In the

case of any allegation/suspicion about the genuineness of the certificate, the Returning Officer

should get the position cross-checked with the authority which purportedly issued the SC/ST

certificate in question, before deciding the validity of the nomination paper of the candidate

concerned. If on such cross-checking/verification, the Returning Officer is satisfied that the

certificate in question is not genuine, he should not only reject the nomination of the candidate

concerned but should also initiate criminal proceeding against the candidate for adducing forged

documentary evidence before him. (Instruction No. 4/3/2008/JS-II(vol.III) dated 2.7.2008.

214.

Thus, from perusal of Sub-Clause-viii of Clause 6.10 of hand book to Returning

Officer issued by the Election Commissioner of India, it would appear that the Returning

Officer has to see only the Caste Certificate filed before him by the candidate of any

particular party or any person independently contesting elections and in case of benefit of

doubt, the advantage will go to the candidate who has produced the Caste Certificate and

benefit of doubt will be given to the candidates to the Caste Certificate in case of any

controversy/dispute.

215.

It further reveals that the order sheet of the nomination paper of the candidate has

not been maintained by the Returning Officer, but on this aspect has to be seen by the State

Election Commission as well as the Election Commission of India as the Returning Officer

(X) in light of the guideline of Election Commission of India. Hence, the State Election

Commission should formulate guidelines for maintain the order sheet by the Returning

Officer at the time of by accepting or rejecting the nomination paper of any contesting

candidates either independently or through any political party. This Court is not issuing any

direction to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar) of this Court in W. P. (C) No.

1583 of 2022 vide order dated 31.01.2023 as it will amount to overlapping of the order

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

125

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar) of this

Court and as such, this Court refrains from passing any order.

216.

Ext.-12 is circular dated 18.10.2005, which reveals that the same has been issued

by then Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand by observing that the liberal approach

should be adopted in issuing Caste Certificate to the needy person by placing reliance upon

the letter dated 18.11.1982 and 20.02.1985 respectively. Therefore, the Caste Certificate of

the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal was based on the basis of circular dated 18.10.2005 issued

by the Competent Authority of the State Government. Moreover, there was no direction or

suggestion to file the Original Caste Certificate to any candidate. No doubt the Election

Petitioner had filed his Original Caste Certificate whereas the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal

has filed his photocopy of the Caste Certificate, but that was not one of the guidelines of the

Election Commission of the India that Original Caste Certificate was required to be

submitted at the time of filing of nomination paper. Thus, even if there was some irregularity

in filing the Caste Certificate of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal, but the same was curable

in nature and it cannot be taken as omission on the part of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal

or on the part of the Returning Officer.

217.

Apart from this, the genuineness and veracity of Caste Certificate of the

Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal cannot be examined in this Election Petition. This Court has

relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High, Gwalior Bench,

Madras High Court and Chhatishgargh High Court to the effect that genuineness of Caste

Certificate cannot be decided in the Election Petition. The genuineness of the Caste

Certificate has to be decided in light of the Judgement passed in the case of Kumari Madhuri

Patil (supra) in which an elaborate guidelines have been provided, which are very exhaustive

in nature. It has been pointed out that both the parties have to be examined their respective

witnesses and also to prove their documents within a certain time frame and the Caste

Scrutiny Committee has been authorized to take proper decision in accordance with law

within a period of three month and they have been prescribed Authority in view of the

Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another

versus Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC

241 and which have been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayaram

versus Sudhir Batham and Others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333 and it has been observed that

so long as no guideline has been provided by the Legislature, the guideline shows in the case

of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) will continue.

126

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

The guidelines and instruction prevalent at the time of in issuing Caste Certificate

dated 31.10.2009, but that cannot be decided at this stage in this Election Petition.

218.

The petitioner is further estopped from raising the contention of Caste Certificate

i.e. Scheduled Caste of the Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the Respondent No. 1,

Smmari Lal had contested the several Elections right from year 1985 till the year 2009 and he

had earlier contested from various political parties i.e. Janta Dal, RJD, JMM and also as

independent candidate, but at no point of time, such objection was raised by the petitioner

earlier and even the petitioner had contested election from the same 65, Kanke (Scheduled

Caste), Assembly Constituency, Ranchi, but no objection was raised and for the first time, the

petitioner has raised this objection alongwith Congress Party to which he is a candidate and

as such, the same is frivolous and as such the petitioner is estopped from raising the Caste

Certificate of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal.

219.

It has been held in the case of Small Industries Development Bank of India Versus

SIBCO Investment Private Ltd. reported in (2022) 3 SCC 56 at Para-49 and 50 is as follows:-

“Para-49:- It is evident from the record, that when the payment warrants were received by the

plaintiff, it effaced (quaere enfaced) the warrants by handwritten remark “Received”. Pertinently,

in the first instance, protest was only raised in reference to excessive TDS deduction by the

defendant while remitting the dues. The demand for interest on delayed payment, was raised after

passage of 7 months, when the books of SIBCO were allegedly audited. This justification does

not appear to be reasonable. In fact, as has been stated previously in this judgment, the plaintiff

was entitled to demand interest for delayed payment in its writ petition as well. But SIBCO has

consistently failed to raise this demand at every stage including at the stage of accepting the sum

tendered by the defendant, without any protest.

Para-50:- Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff accepted the payment from the defendant as due

settlement of its claims. SIBCO's failure to raise protest and demand for interest at the earliest

possible stage, amounted to sub silentio acceptance. Accordingly, the plaintiff is barred from

raising this demand after several months applying the principle of waiver/acquiescence.”

220.

In view of the discussion made above and considering the evidence of DW-1 to

DW-12 and DW-14 and the documents discussed above and also in view of the guideline

provided in Clause-6.10 of the Handbook of the Election Commission of India, this Court

finds that no illegality has been committed by the respondent no. 2 by allowing the

respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal to contest the 65, Kanke (Scheduled Caste), Assembly

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

127

Constituency and the result of 65, Kanke (Scheduled Caste), Constituent Assembly Election

has not been materially affected by accepted/acceptance of nomination of the respondent no.

1, Smmari Lal and election of the respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal from 65, Kanke (Scheduled

Caste), Assembly Constituency is not liable to be set aside. Thus, Issue Nos. VI, X and XIII

are answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal.

Issue Nos. I, II, III and XIV:-

221.

In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that there is no cause of

action for filing this Election Petition and as such, this Election Petition is not maintainable

and this Election Petition is devoid of merit and the petitioner is estopped from raising the

issue of Caste of the Respondent No. 1, Smmari Lal and hence, the petitioner is not entitled

to any relief(s).

Thus, Issue Nos. I, II, III and XIV are also decided against the petitioner and in

favour of the Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal.

222.

In view of the discussion made above, this Election Petition is dismissed, but

without any costs.

223.

All the pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

224.

Let this Judgment be communicated to the Election Commission of India, the

State Election Commission and Office of Hon’ble Speaker, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha and to

all concerned by the Office at once.

225.

Office is directed to return the document to the paties after keeping the photocopy

of the same.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

आदेश से,

अरͪवÛ द आनÛ द,

Ĥधान सͬचव

भारत Ǔनवा[चन आयोग

128

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

--------

NOTIFICATION

04 February, 2025/15 Magha, 1946 (Saka)

No. 82/ES-1/JKD-LA/(03/2020)/2025-In pursuance of Section 106(B) of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby publishes the

Order dated 24^th October, 2024 of the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Election Petition No. 03

of 2020.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Election Petition No. 03 of 2020

-----

Suresh Kumar Baitha, aged about 45 years, son of Late Puran Baitha, resident of Jagatpuram

(Behind Hot Lips), PO-Gandhi Nagar, PS-Gonda, District- Ranchi-834008 (Jharkhand)

…… Petitioner

Versus

Smmari Lal, aged about 57 years, son of Late Mishri Lal Balmiki, resident of 354, RIMS Staff

Quarter, Bariatu, PO- Bariatu, PS- Bariatu, District- Ranchi

Returning Officer, 65, Kanke (Scheduled Caste), Assembly Constituency, Jharkhand State

Legislative Assembly Election- 2019, 203, B. Block, D. C. Office, Near Kutchery Chowk, PO, GPO-

Ranchi, PS- Kotwali, District-Ranchi

…… Respondents

-----

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate

For the Resp. No. 1

: Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate

Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate

Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate

For the Resp. No. 2

: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate

-----

JUDGMENT

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) सोमवार, 24 फ़रवरȣ, 2025

129

C.A.V. dated 02/04/2024

Pronounced on 24/10/2024

This Election Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-Suresh Kumar

Baitha for a declaration that election of Respondent no. 1, Smmari Lal from 65, Kanke

(Scheduled Caste), Assembly Constituency, Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly Election-

2019 be declared void and his election may be set aside on the ground that the Returning

Officer has caused improperly received for nomination of Respondent no. 1 and by illegally

allowing him to contest from 65, Kanke (Scheduled Caste), Assembly Constituency,

Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly Election-2019, which was reserved Constituency for

the member of Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:-

(I.)

The Governor of Jharkhand had called upon to constitute the 5th Jharkhand State

Legislative Assembly through General Election (Jharkhand State Assembly Election-2019)

on the basis of adult franchise. Accordingly the Election Commission of India ("ECI")

announced that the general election to constitute 81 elected Members of People

Representative to the Jharkhand State Assembly will be held in 5 phases in the State of

Jharkhand. As per notification of Election Commission of India, date of completion of

election process was 29.12.2019.

(II.)

The programme for holding the Election of 65, Kanke (Scheduled Caste) Assembly

Constituency, under 3rd phase was as under: -

Sl.

Nos.

Subject of Programme

Dates

(i)

Issue of notification

16.11.2019

(ii)

Last date of filing nominations

25.11.2019

(iii)

Scrutiny of nominations

26.11.2019

(iv)

Last date for withdrawal of candidate

28.11.2019 upto

03:00 P.M.

(v)

Date of allotment of symbols

28.11.2019

(vi)

Date of Polling

12.12.2019

(vii)

Date of counting and declaration of result

23.12.2019

(viii)

Date of completion of election process

29.12.2019

(III.)

The seat of 65, Kanke, State Assembly Legislative Constituency is reserved for

Scheduled Caste Candidate of the State of Jharkhand.

130