IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.69 of 2010 1. ISHWARI GOND S/O LATE SHANKAR GOND R/O VILL.+P.O. MUKARI P.S. BHABHUA, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABHUA)- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDL.D.G., B.M.P., BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE I.G. OF POLICE/B.M.P. BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, MILLITARY POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, PATNA 6. THE COMMANDANT, B.M.P.-5, PATNA – Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.A. VI. 2 5.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has been dismissed from service by the Commandant, B.M.P.5, Patna, D.I.G. of Police, Central Zone and the I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna vide Annexures 5, 6 and 7, dated 22.9.2001, 15.9.2003 and19.8.2005. The ground for terminating the petitioner is that at the time of advertisement, the petitioner has described himself to belong to the caste ‘Gond’ which comes under the category of a scheduled tribe. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner had not made any mis-statement as at the time when the advertisement was issued, ‘Gond’ caste was within the category of scheduled tribe, which was later amended by the State Government in 2007, wherein it was held that Gond caste belongs to a category of Extremely Backward II (Annexure 10). The disciplinary authority has treated the petitioner to belong to a caste known as ‘Gour’ and has held that the petitioner would not be entitled for payment and the caste ‘Gour’ and ‘Gond are 2 different and, therefore, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has obtained appointment by submitting a wrong caste certificate indicating his caste. There appears to be a confusion with respect to ‘Gond’, ‘Gaur’ and ‘Gour’. This confusion has been settled by a recent notification of the State Government, dated 28.2.2007 that all such references to Gond, Gour or Gaur shall appropriately mean ‘Gond’ only. This fact would be apparent from the decision of this court passed in CWJC No. 12866/2000, dated 21.8.2008. The only controversy is that whether the petitioner had given a false certificate describing himself to be Gond and whether it should be treated as Gour? It is apparent that Gond and Gour are the same caste and at the time of appointment, there appears to be no dispute that the caste ‘Gond’ / ‘Gour’ was belonging to scheduled tribe category and it was only de-listed from the category of scheduled tribe by a notification of the State Government issued vide memo no. 695, dated 28.2.2007. The assumption of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner has wrongly described himself to belonging to scheduled tribe by indicating that he belongs to Gond caste is misconceived in view of the facts stated aforesaid. This court also finds that at the time when the petitioner was appointed, Gond/Gour caste was treated to be belonging to scheduled tribe and as such it cannot be said that he had misrepresented or produced a false caste certificate and was not entitled for appointment to the said post as he did not belong to the 3 category of scheduled tribe. The subsequent developments and declaration by the State Government would obviously be prospective and it cannot be held on the basis of the notification, dated 28.2.2007 that the petitioner would not be entitled to the said appointment as he comes within Extremely Backward II category. Accordingly the orders impugned are quashed and the petitioner should be reinstated in service. He will be paid his salary prospectively. The period for which he has remained out of service, will be counted as service period for all other purposes. However, he would not be entitled for payment for the said period for the reason that he has not worked from the order of dismissal, dated 22.9.2001. This writ petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)