ORDER
S.L. Jain, J.
1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 14-12-2001, passed by the State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Original Application No. 1878/1996, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to be given appointment under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
2. A brief resume of the facts required to be stated for disposal of this petition is as follows :--
The petitioner was selected for undergoing training in the Pat-wari Training School, Rewa from 1-9-1994 to 30-54995. After completion of training, he was subjected to written test in which he was declared successful. Many of the persons, included in the list of such candidates have been given appointment as Patwari but no such appointment has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he is 'Sondhiya' by caste and belongs to 'Majhi' Scheduled Tribe.
3. The petitioner filed an original application before the 'Tribunal' wherein it was prayed that the respondents may be directed to issue orders appointing the petitioner to the post of Patwari. He based this claim on the certificates given by Naib Tehsildar and the Member of Parliament, Rewa. This application was combated by the respondents. It was put forth by them that the petitioner was selected for the training in the Scheduled Tribe category on certain conditions, one of those being that in case of production of false certificate the admission would stand cancelled. In the return submitted by the respondents before the Tribunal it was contended that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe but he belongs to the 'Other Backward Classes' therefore, he was not entitled for the appointment. Reference was also made in the return to the circular, dated 1-6-1995, enclosed as Annexure R-l in the original application in which it has been notified to all the departments that 'Sondhiya' sub-caste is not recognized as belonging to 'Majhi' community, therefore, they cannot be treated as persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes.
4. The learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Tribes but to 'Sondhiya' community which has been declared as belonging to Other Backward Class vide notification dated 26th December, 1984, published in the Gazette, dated 8th February, 1985. The Tribunal also held that the 'Majhi' community was deleted from the list of Scheduled Tribes vide Notification No. 21-6-25-5-92, dated 26th August, 1992.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of State Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner challenged the same in this writ petition.
6. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, it is submitted by Shri Sharad Verma, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the State of Madhya Pradesh, in G.A.D. Circular No. F-7-4-/98/AP/Ek, Bhopal, dated 6th March, 1998 directed all the departmental heads that the persons belonging to 'Majhi' community should not be ousted from service till the decision of High Level Committee is received.
7. We have carefully read the circular dated 6th March, 1998. The direction issued by the circular is to the effect that the persons belonging to 'Majhi' community should not be ousted from service till the decision of High Level Committee is received. The circular applies to those persons who belong to 'Majhi' community but the petitioner belongs to 'Sondhiya' sub-caste which is not included in 'Majhi', community. 'Sondhiyas' have been included in the Other Backward Class category at Serial No. 12, therefore, they can not be said to have been included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. A community, can either be included in a Scheduled Tribe in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 or in the list of Other Backward Class. A community declared as belonging to Other Backward Class can not be a Scheduled Tribe and vice-versa. The two are mutually exclusive. Therefore, a person belonging to 'Sondhiya' community can not be treated as a person belonging to 'Majhi' community. Serial No. 12 of notification dated 26th December, 1984 has been reproduced by the Tribunal in its order (we have also verified the same from 1985 M.P. Law Times Part Second pg. 73), which reads as under :--
'12. Dheemar, Bhoi, Khar, Dhiwar, Mallaha, Nawada, Turaha, Kewat, (Kashyap, Nishad, Raikwar, Batham), Keer (excluding Bhopal, Raisen, Sehore Districts), Britiya, Vritia, Singaraha, Jalari, Jalarnalu (in Bastar District), Sondhiya,......'
When it was brought to the notice of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that 'Sondhiya' sub-caste is now included in the Other Backward Class and excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes, he took a somersault and submitted that the petitioner does not belong to 'Sondhiya'; community but he belongs to 'Majhi' community. This contention can not be accepted. It is clear from the cause title of the original application before the Tribunal as well as of this writ petition that the petitioner is actually 'Sondhiya'. The certificate of caste which was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal also reveals that the petitioner is 'Sondhiya'. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner does not belong to 'Sondhiya' community is fallacious.
8. Shri Verma also contended that the certificate of caste issued by the Naib Tehsildar and the certificate given by the Member of Parliament clearly certify that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and the same ought not to have been rejected by the Tribunal.
9. Obviously, the certificates have been issued without properly appreciating the legal position and on wrong premise. When from the cause title itself it is clear that the petitioner is 'Sondhiya' and 'Sondhiya' sub-community falls in the category of Other Backward Class, the petitioner cannot take the advantage of certificates given on wrong premise. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner is 'Sondhiya' and he falls in the category of Other Backward Classes and not in the category in Scheduled Tribe.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. There is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.