JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Deepak Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents.
2.The Post of Pradhan of Village Mallpur Jannua, Tehsil Billari, Moradabad was declared as reserved constituency for Scheduled Castes in respect of elections, which were to be held in the year 2000. Sri Chandra Pal Singh, petitioner on the basis of Caste Certificate obtained by him from the Tehsildar contested the elections for the said post of Prdhan of Village Mallpur Jannua. In the elections so held, Sri Amar Singh, respondent No. 3 was also one of the contestant. The result of the said elections was declared on 26th June, 2000 in which the petitioner Sri Chandra Pal Singh defeated Sri Amar Singh, (the petitioner, secured 447 votes while the respondent No. 3 secured only 429 votes). Sri Amar Singh filed Election Petition being Election Petition No. 8 of 2001 under Section 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act on the ground that Sri Chandra Pal Singh was not eligible to contest the said elections for the post of Pradhan of Village Mallpur Jannua, which was declared as reserved constituency for the Scheduled Castes category as he was a member of the general category and the certificate obtained by him to the effect that he was a member of Scheduled Castes, was a forged document. The Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 20th July, 2001 allowed the election petition and declared the elections of the petitioner as illegal on the ground that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste Category. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority the petitioner preferred a revision, which was numbered as P.C.R. No. 3 of 2001 before the District Judge, Moradabad. The revision so filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.-12, Moradabad vide order dated 17th January, 2003. It is against the aforesaid two orders of the Prescribed Authority as well as Additional District Judge that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The short controversy which is up for consideration before this Court, is as to whether the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Castes category or not. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to seat of Pradhan of village in question was as reserved constituency for Scheduled Castes Category Candidates.
4. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner belongs to 'Pasia' caste. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the writ petition it has been stated that 'caste Aharia Thakur 'Pasia' is known as Scheduled Caste community in the State and Central Government'. From the facts as have been stated by the petitioner, it is not disputed that the petitioner does not claim to be member of a caste, which included in any list notified under Article 341 of the Constitution of India.
5. The contention raised of the petitioner is:
The Caste, Aharia, Bahelia and Karwal are one and same being synonyms to each other of which Bahelia and Karwal are included in the Scheduled appended to the Schedules Castes order 1950. Aharia is also popularly known as Pasia, which is also Scheduled caste.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner is a member of caste which is synonym of a caste included in the presidential order issued in exercise of power under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, and therefore petitioner is also a member of Scheduled Caste. The controversy in issue has already been settled vide judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42348 of 2004 in the case of Vijay Prakash v. State of U.P. and Ors. with reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6419 (E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.) and it has been specifically held that the State Legislature or its executive has no power of "disturbing" (term used by Dr. Ambedkar) the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes for the State. Therefore, any executive action or legislative enactment of States which interferes, disturbs, rearranges, regroups or reclassifies the various castes found in the Presidential List will be violative of scheme of the Constitution and will be violative of Article 341 of the Constitution.
7. The Courts are devoid of powers to include or exclude to vary or substitute or declare synonyms to be the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or parts thereof or groups of such castes or tribes. Reference: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2306 (Nityanand Sharma and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors.), AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1728 (Pankaj Kumar Saha v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Islampur and Ors.), 1999 (7) Supreme Court - Cases 120 (Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. ). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further specifically held that the courts have no power to go behind these orders. Reference: AIR 1969 Supreme Court 597 (Parasram and Anr. v. Shivchand and Ors.).Reference may also be had to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1506 (Bhrahma Nand Puri v. Nekipuri since deceased represented by Mathpuri and Anr.), wherein it has been held that it is not open to anybody to seek any modification of the Order by producing any evidence to show that though caste A alone is mentioned in the Order, caste B was also a part Of Caste A, and as such was deemed to be a Scheduled Caste. It is, therefore useless to refer to Gazetteers or glossaries for establishing that a caste is a 'Scheduled Caste', for the purposes of the Constitution, though not mentioned, as such in the President's Order.
8. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position the claim of the petitioner for being a scheduled caste because the caste Pasia is synonym of some other castes included in list notified under Article 341 cannot be legally sustained and the writ petition is hereby dismissed.