1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of 15 May, 2002 on C. W. J. C. No. 439 of 2001 : (reported in 2002 (3) Part LJ LR 393): Sumit Anand v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
2. On behalf of the State of Bihar the Court heard learned A. A. G. 2 yesterday and today. Today, on behalf of the respondent Dr. Sadanand Jha, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kripanand Jha have been also heard.
3. The issue apparently has arisen after a certificate was given to Sumit Anand certifying that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe carrying surname 'Gond'. If it were only a matter of petitioner Sumit Anand then perhaps the State would have had a case for being examined. Fortunately for the respondent Sumit Anand (petitioner in the writ petition) or unfortunately for the State of Bihar, at least for three generations the family of Sumit Anand has been certified as 'Gond'. If this were not sufficient then it is on record that the maternal uncle of the petitioner came to the High Court (C. W. J. C. No. 1407 of 1990) with a similar controversy and had it certified that the family was a Gond as a Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, the petitioner's mother was certified as a reserved category. After examination of the records a certiorari certified the certification granted by the State of Bihar and its officials that he belonged to the Gond community, a Scheduled Tribe.
4. The petitioner's father also received a similar certification and was appointed as an Upper Division clerk in the Income Tax department in 1965. At that time the petitioner was not even born as his father's age, today, the affidavit in the writ petition shows, is 45 years. The certificates given to the father that he was 'Gond', a Scheduled Tribe was granted by the District Magistrate, Siwan on 23 December, 1982. And yet again a certificate was granted to his grand father on 14 January, 1983. Thus, the record declares that the petitioner's father and grand father belonged to the Gond community and certified as a Scheduled Tribe. The record further reveals, and the learned Judge has noticed it so in his order, that both on the father's side and the mother's side, the District official certified that the petitioner's family has a direct genealogy as Gond a Scheduled Tribe.
5. Today, it is being contended that the certificates given by different State functionaries describing the petitioner as Gond are incorrect. The issue before the Court is not that the petitioner has obtained the certification from the District Officials describing him as a Gond and belonging to the Scheduled Tribe upon misrepresentation. This is not so. It may be a case of interpretation but there is no element of fraud or misrepresentation to deny the certification received by the petitioner as also his father and grand father (if not the great grand father). Similar certification has been received on his mother side also. The contention of the petitioner that he is born to Gond parents is a certification made by the State.
6. Learned A. A. G. 2 mentions that in the writ petition it had been submitted that the certification so made describing the petitioner-respondent Sumit Anand as Gond belonging to Scheduled Tribe is an incorrect certification. The submission has been noted. But, the averments in the counter-affidavit made by the District Magistrate, Siwan are otherwise. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, the District Magistrate suggests that the father of the petitioner' is not Scheduled Tribe and does not belong to Gond community'. It is suggested that the certification made by another District Magistrate is' a paper of impeachable nature'. In a reference to the petitioner's mother the District Magistrate submits that' the certificate obtained by the mother of the petitioner is (sic) a forged piece of paper'. This is an irresponsible submission that the District Magistrate should contradict his predecessor without plausible cause that the certification so made by earlier District Magistrate has been done Surreptitiously.
7. In so far as the record before the High Court is concerned, it shows that generation after generation both on the father's side and the mother's side the State authorities themselves certified that the petitioner's lather or his grand father or his maternal uncle or his maternal grand uncle were Gond by caste and otherwise Scheduled Tribes. If not for any reason, in so far as the State of Bihar is concerned it is stopped by the rule of estoppel from challenging its own certification. Fraud in the manner in which it has been attempted to be made, the submission in the counter affidavit is an irresponsible submission. The averment, to the effect, that the petitioner's father and mother may have misrepresented has not been based on any cogent explanation so as to rebut the presumption that earlier authorities have had exercised their discretion to certify, callously and without responsibility.
8. In the circumstances, the Court is unable to certify that the learned Judge was in error in granting the relief on the petition
and this Court has no reason to differ with the order on the writ petition.
Dismissed.