APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to command the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from Junior Selection Grade to Senior Selection Grade in the rank of Additional District Magistrate and grant all consequential benefits.
(3.) THE reason for the petitioner to come before this Court with the said prayer is that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 4th June, 2013 chose to keep the case of the petitioner pending in view of an inquiry in relation to his Scheduled Tribe status and keep post vacant. The controversy raised herein now is basically in relation to the status of the petitioner as Scheduled Tribe person. The petitioner's mother, a Tribal lady, Smt. Shanti Bakshi, daughter of Late Sri A.L.Minz, married a Forward Caste (Kaystha) person Sri A.P.Bakshi (now deceased) in the year 1956. The certificate of Scheduled Tribe was issued by the Ranchi Collectorate on 17th May, 1993 under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, to the petitioner on the basis of a judgment rendered in CWJC No. 3357 of 1992(R) in the case of the petitioner himself seeking issuance of such certificate. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate is at Annexure -2 and the judgment as aforesaid is at Annexure -1 and is being quoted hereunder: "23.2.93. Heard the parties. This writ application has been filed for giving a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) for granting caste certificate. It appears that, undisputedly, the petitioner's mother was a scheduled tribe and she was married with a non -tribal namely, one Mr. A.P.Bakshi, and the petitioner was born from lawful wedlock. From Annexure -1, it appears that grant of certificate has been refused as the petitioner did not agree to change his title from Bakshi to Oraon. It is said that according to Government circular, if a tribal marries non -tribal, then their off spring have to be treated tribal provided they have been accepted by tribal community. In support of the contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in C.W.J.C No. 1201 of 1987 ( R) contained in Annexure -9 and by order dated 11.3.1988, in similar circumstances, the writ application was allowed and the direction was given to grant caste certificate. The only question to be considered in the present case is whether their parents have been accepted by tribal community or not. From the report, Annexure -1, it appears that tribal community has accepted them. In view of this, in our view, the petitioner is entitled to grant of certificate and the authority was not justified in insisting that the petitioner should change his title from Bakahsi to Oraon. In the result, this writ application is allowed and respondent no. 2 is directed to grant caste certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner got appointed as a member of the State Administrative Service sometime in the year 1995 on having cleared the 38th Combined Civil Services Examination. It is not in dispute that before the aforesaid decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which has kept the claim of the petitioner pending for promotion, there was no dispute about the status of Scheduled Tribe granted to the petitioner pursuant to the said certificate. The entire controversy seems to have arisen after the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2076 of 2003 in the case of Pius Lakra -Vs. - The State of Jharkhand and others dated 26th November, 2009. The caste certificate of the petitioner's brother, namely, Sanjeet Bakshi, who was respondent no. 6 in the said writ petition was cancelled on the prayer made by a Scheduled Tribe Candidate, who allegedly could not be appointed under 42nd Combined Public Service Examination, as the petitioner's brother Sanjeet Bakshi was recommended as Scheduled Tribe candidate and appointed as such. The Scheduled Tribe certificate of the petitioner's brother appears to have been issued on 13th December, 1989 and 17th May, 1993 as per the findings recorded in the said judgment.;