W.A. No.917/2011 07.09.2011 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant who is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. The appellant was appointed in the year 1977 on Muster Roll. He was thereafter appointed in work-charged establishment in the year 1979. Subsequently he was appointed as Civil Attendant Grade-III. Till this stage there is no dispute. Thereafter, the petitioner who had been appointed in the General Category got himself declared as Scheduled Caste on the basis of a certificate to that effect issued from West Bengal. On the strength of this status as Scheduled Caste, the petitioner obtained promotions. Subsequently it was found that the caste to which the petitioner claims to belong is not a Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Even the petitioner does not dispute this. The question whether a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or not is to be seen State-wise as per settled law. Therefore, the appellant got those promotions without being entitled to the same. Accordingly, the promotions have been canceled and a very minor punishment has been imposed. The appellant has now retired from service. The learned Single Judge accordingly dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner relies upon Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and on that basis wants to urge that it was the respondent authorities which asked the appellant to claim Scheduled Caste benefits if the appellant belonged to Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the appellant claimed that benefit on the strength of the certificate issued from the West Bengal. The appellant claims that he had not played any fraud and, therefore, under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, the respondents are estopped from treating the appellant as non-Scheduled Caste candidate. The argument is totally misconceived and betrays utter lack of knowledge of the Evidence Act. The Evidence Act applies in the judicial proceedings before a Court, and not to the State Government on the administrative side. The next argument raised from the appellant is that if enhanced payment has been made to an employee which is due to wrong fixation of pay, and there was no fraud or collusion by the employee in such wrong fixation, recovery should not be made. In this case, there is no order for recovery and, therefore, the said proposition has no application. The employee gave a wrong declaration that he is belonging to the Scheduled Caste, which is not true in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Because of this wrong declaration, the minor punishment has been imposed. We do not see any good ground to interfere in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Sushil Harkauli) (K. K. Trivedi) Acting Chief Justice Judge snb/-