PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMAversusUNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

A                      PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA
                                   v.
               UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

                                OCTOBER 19, 2006

B                [ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]


         Constitution of India, 1950:

          Articles 342(a), 348 and 341-Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
C   1950-ltem No. 20-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order
    (Amendment) Act, 1956-Entry 20-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
    Order (Amendment) Act, 1976-Entry 22-Member of 'lohar' community in
    Stale of Bihar-Claim of. as member of Scheduled Tribe-Held: "lohar"
    community is 'Other Backward Class' and not a 'Scheduled Tribe'-There
D   was ambiguity in the Hindi translation of the 1976 Scheduled Tribe Order-
    Enli)' "lohara' in the English version of the 1976 Order which was slated
    to be 'Scheduled Tribe' was wrongly translated as 'Lahar' in Hindi-English
    is the authoritative text for the Acts of Parliament and not Hindi text-Thus,
     'Lahar' community cannot get the benefit of reservation as a 'Scheduled
    Tribe-Official languages Act, 1963.
E
         Article 366(24) and (25), Articles 341, 342, 32 and 226-Categories
   of castes/tribes specified under Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950
  as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment)
   Act, 1976-Judicial inte_rvention-Held: Court cannot include in or exclude
F from or substitute or declare synonyms to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
   Tribe or parts thereof or group of such castes or tribes-It has limited
  jurisdiction to find out whether the particular Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
   Tribe is included in the Schedule-Courts must read the lists of Scheduled
   Castes and Scheduled Tribes as they find them and accept their ordinmy
   meaning-If the Presidential Notification does not contain any specific class
G or tribe or a part of it then Parliament can amend the law and the Schedule-
   Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950-Scheduled Castes and
   Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976.

         The tribe "Lohara" was mentioned as a Scheduled Tribe for State of
    Bihar at S. No. 20 under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
H                                        522
                   PRABHA T KUMAR SHARMA v. U.P.S.C.                        523
According to the report of a Backward Classes Commission set up in 1953, A
"Lohar" was shown amongst the list of Backward Classes. The Commission
recommended that "Lohra" be added with "Lohara" in the Scheduled Tribe
Order, 1950. Thereafter, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order
(Amendment) Act, 1956 was enacted and entry 20 was substituted to read as
"Lohara" and "Lohra". In 1976, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes . B
Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed and in the English version, entry
22 "Lohara" and "Lohra" were stated to be Scheduled Tribes. However, in
the Hindi translation of the said entry "Lohara" was translated as "Lohar"
and the Hindi translation had "Lohar" and "Lohra" as two Scheduled Tribes.
Thereafter, because of the ambiguity in the Hindi translation of the 1976
Scheduled Tribe Order, members of"Lohar" community claimed themselves C
to be members of Scheduled Tribe, even though they had been identified as a
backward class by the Commission in 1955.

      In *Shambhu Nath v. Union of India and Anr. case this Court passed
an order treating 'Lohars' as members of the Scheduled Tribe. This question
again came up before this Court in **Nityanand Sharma and Anr. v. State of D
Bihar and Ors., case and the Court after noticing the ambiguity existing in
the Hindi translation of 1976 Scheduled Tribe Order held that whereas
"Lohara" and "Lohra" belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, the "Lohars" in State
of Bihar belonged to the Other Backward Classes. This issue again came up
before this Court in ***Vinay Prakash and Ors. v. State of Bihar and E
Nityanand's case was upheld.

      The present appellant-member of "Lobar" community claimed
themselves to be members of Scheduled Tribe. Single Judge of the High Court
relying on **Nityanand's case held that "Lobar" community is "Other
Backward Class" and not a Scheduled Tribe. Aggrieved appellant filed letters       F
patent appeal which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

      Appellant contended that **Nityanand 's case was wrongly decided; and
that after the coming into force of the Official Languages Act, 1963 the Hindi
version was the authoritative text and in the case of ambiguity between Hindi      G
and English versions, the Hindi version would prevail.

      Dismissing the matters, the Court

      HELD: I. I. If the Presidential Notification does not contain any specific
class or tribe or a part of, it, then it is for the Parliament to amend the law    H
and the Schedule and include in and exclude from the Schedule, a tribe or
    524                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community for
    the State. The Courts must read the lists of Schedule Castes and Schedule
    Tribes under Articles 341 and 342 read with Article 366(24) and (25) as they
    find them and accept their ordinary meaning. Neither the Government nor
    the judiciary can add or subtract to the List of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
B   Tribes. But, the Court would have the limited jurisdiction to the extent of
    finding out whether the Community which claims the status as Scheduled
    Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the Schedule concerned.
    To that limited extent, the court would have the jurisdiction but, otherwise,
    the court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or
    declare synonyms to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof
C   or group of such castes or tribes. (530-C-F)

           1.2. In **Nityanand's case this Court examined in detail as to whether
    there were three castes/tribes by the nomenclature Lohra, Lohara and Lobar
    or whether Lobar and Lohara were one and the same thing and if Lobar and
    Lohara were two different castes/tribes then which one of them would qualify
D   as a tribe or whether both will qualify as a tribe. The Court was called upon
    to declare as to whether the Hindi translation was correct or the original
    English text was correct. The Court looked at the Ethnographic survey
    conducted in India by H.H. Risley to remove the ambiguity which had crept in
    because of the contradictory entries in English and Hindi versions of the
E   Presidential Order. The Court after taking notice of Article 348(1)(b) of the
    Constitution oflndia which provides that the authoritative text of all Bills to
    be introduced or amendments thereof to be moved in either House of the
    Parliament shall be in English language came to the conclusion that the Hindi
    version was a translated version and the original version which was in English
    was the authoritative text and in the Hindi version there was some defect in
F   translation because of which Lohar Community had been claiming the
    advantage of being a Scheduled Tribe when actually they were only a backward
    class and thus could not be given the benefit of reservation as a Scheduled
    Tribe. (530-G; 531-A-F(

G         1.3. Article 348 of the Constitution clearly provides English to be the
    authoritative text in respect of Acts of Parliament, amendment to Acts subject
    to any law m·ade by the Parliament. Section 3 of the Official Languages Act,
    1963 provides for continuance of English language for official purposes of
    Union and for use in Parliament. Section 5 provides for a Hindi translation of
    all Central Acts and Ordinances promulgated by the President or if any order
H   or rule or regulation or bye-laws issued under the Constitution or under any
                  PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA v. U.P.S.C. [BHAN . .I.]             525

     Central Act. From the conjoint reading of Article 348 of the Constitution     A
     and Sections· 3 and 5 of the 1963 Act, English continues to remain the
     authoritative text in respect of the Acts of Parliament. (532-D-G(

          **Nityanand Sharma and Anr v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1996] 3 SCC
     576 and ***Vinay Prakash & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1997] 3 SCC 406, relied
     on.                                                                           B

           *Shambhu Nath v. Union of India and Anr. Civil Appeal No.4631 of 1990
     decided by SC on 12.9.1990, referred to.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5483 of 2000.
•                                                                                  c
          From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.12.1999 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench in L.P.A. No. 259/1999.

                                       WITH

          W.P. (C) Nos. 173/2002 and 488/2000.                                     D

         Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta and J.M.
    Sharma for the Appellant.

          Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Harish Chandra, Navin Prakash, C.D. Singh,
    Minakshi Sarma, Merusagar Samantary, Gopal Singh, Nishakant Pandey, R.S.       E
    Rana, Y.P. Mahajan, B.K. Prasad, Shreekant N. Terdal, Ms. Sushma Suri, B.V.
    Balaram Das, Krishnanand Pandeya and Rajesh Pathak for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          BHAN, J. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No. 5483 of2000     F
    and Writ Petition Nos. 173 of 2002 and 488 of 2000 filed under Article 32 of
    the Constitution of India. Point involved in all these cases being the same,
    they are disposed of by a common judgment.

         The facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 5483 of 2000.
                                                                                   G
          This appeal has been filed by a member of "Lohar" community from the
    State of Bihar. "Lohars" are being treated as Other Backward Classes whereas
    he claims to be a member of Scheduled Tribes under the Scheduled Castes
    and Scheduled Tribes Order. The point in issues is concluded against the
    appellant by a judgment of this Court in Nityanand Sharma and Anr. v. State    H
    526                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A of Bihar and Ors., [ 1996] 3 SCC 576. The appellant seeks to get the judgment
    in the case of Nityanand (supra) referred to a larger Bench by contending that
    the said judgment is wrong and needs reconsideration.

        Prabhat Kumar Sharma, the appellant herein, was a candidate for the
  Civil Services Examinations held during the years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.
B He claimed to belong to "Lohar" community, which according to him was a
  Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar. While considering the candidature of
  the appellant and while verifying his claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribe
  in the State of Bihar, the Union Public Service Commission prime facie came
  to the conclusion that the "Lohar" community was not included in the list of
C Scheduled Tribes for the State of Bihar issued by the Government of India.
  The Commission addressed a communication to the Deputy Commissioner,
  Ranchi to ascertain if "Lohar" community was recognized as a Scheduled
  Tribe in Bihar. The Deputy Commissioner in his reply indicated that "Lohar"
  community in the Bihar was recognized as "Backward Class" only and not as
  'Schedule Tribe". In the light of this, the appellant was asked by the Commission
0 to clarify the latest position in respect of the community claim.
        The appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 2600 of 1992 in the High
  Court of Patna at Ranchi for a direction to the State Government to issue him
  a caste certificate as 'Scheduled Tribe' on his being a member of "Lohar"
E community. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to issue
  a provisional caste certificate describing the appellant as "Lohar" belonging
  to the Scheduled Tribe with the stipulation that the same shall be subject to
  the final result of the writ petition pending in the High Court. The Bench
  issued an interim direction on I 8.02.1993 directing the Commission to permit
  the appellant to appear in the examination provisionally as a member of the
F "Lohar" community as a 'Scheduled Tribe'. As per interim directions issued
  by the High Court, the Commission treated the appellant along with 4 other
  candidates similarly placed as belonging to Scheduled Tribe provisionally,
  subject to proving their claim. The performance of these candidates including
  the appellant in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1994 was assessed on
G relaxed standards meant for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The result of the
  written part of the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1994 was declared by
  the Commission on 27.04.1995 and none of the five candidates including the
  appellant could qualify the written examination on the basis of their
  performance even as Scheduled Tribe candidates. The appellant had earlier
  failed to qualify the Civil Services (Main) Examination for the year I993 even
H though he was treated as Scheduled Tribe candidate provisionally.
                   PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA v. U.P.S.C. [BHAN, J.)                  527
            Writ Petition came up for final hearing in July, 1999. The Single Judge    A
      of the High Court in its judgment dated 5.7.1999 held that the question, as
      to whether ''Lohar" was a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar stands
      concluded by a judgment of this Court in Nityanand's case (supra) and
      accordingly held that ·'Lohar" community is "Other Backward Class" (OBC)
      and not a Scheduled Tribe.
                                                                                       B
           The appellant being aggrieved filed letters patent appeal in the High
      Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

            Under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 issued in exercise
      of powers conferred under Article 342(a) of the Constitution of India, at S.
      No. 20 the tribe "Lohara" was mentioned as a Scheduled Tribe for the State       c
      of Bihar. The first Backward Classes Commission was set up in the year 1953
      known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission. According to the report of the Kaka
-     Kalelkar Commission, amongst the list of Backward Classes, "Lohar" was
      shown at S. No. 60. However, the Commission report also dealt with the
      Scheduled Tribe Order and the Commission recommended that "Lohra" be             D
      added with "Lohara" in the Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950.

            After the Kaka Kalelkar Commission report, the Scheduled Castes and
      Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1956 was enacted which was
      brought into force with effect from 25.09.1956 and for Bihar, entry 20 was
      substituted to read as "Lohara" or "Lohra". Thus, right upto I976 there was E
      no ambiguity in the Scheduled Tribe Order as only "Lohara" was initially
      considered as a Scheduled Tribe and with effect from I956 "Lohara" as well
      as "Lohra" were mentioned as Scheduled Tribe.

             In the year I976 the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order
      (Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed and in the English version of the same, F
      viz. entry 22 the position as existing from 1956 was maintained. "Lohara" and
      "Lohra" were stated to be Scheduled Tribes. However, in the Hindi translation
      of the said entry "Lohara" was translated as "Lohar". Thus the Hindi translation
      had "Lohar" and "Lohra" as two Scheduled Tribes. After the 1976 Amendment,
      members of the "Lohar" community started claiming themselves to be members G
      of Scheduled Tribe even though they had been identified as a backward class
;     as early as in the year 1955 by Kaka Kalelkar Commission.

            Because of the ambiguity in the Hindi translation of the 1976 Scheduled
      Tribe Order, members of"Lohar" community claimed themselves to be members
...                                                                                    H
    528                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A of Scheduled Tribe. The first litigation which came to the Supreme Court on
    this subject was Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 1990 in the case of Shambhu Nath
    v. Union of India & Anr., This came up for hearing before three Judges of
    this Court. This Court disposed of the appeal on 12.9.1990 by passing the
    following order:-

B         "Special Leave granted.

               The short point raised in this appeal is as to whether the Central
           Administrative Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant did not
           belong to the Lohar community which has now been declared as a
           Scheduled Tribe in Chapra District of Bihar. It is not in dispute that
c          from 1976 onwards the community has been so included but
           according to the Postal Department of Union of India, at the time
           when the appellant entered service, the community had not been so
           included and, therefore, the recruitment on the footing that he was
           a member of a scheduled Tribe entitled to reservation was bad.
D               We have looked into the record and have heard counsel for the
           parties. Jn view of the accepted position that Lahar community is
           included in the Scheduled Tribe from the date of amendment of the
           list in 1976 and the dispute as to whether the community was known
           as "Lohar" or "Lohra" and if it was the latter, it has been so included
E          from before, we do not think the Tribunal was justified in holding the
           view it has taken.

               The appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is vacated.
           The appellant shall now return to duty. The period between 16.12.1986
           when the order removing him was made and the date when he would
F          join in terms of our declaration now he shall be entitled to 50% of his
           salary. In regard to all other service benefits, his service shall be
           treated to be continuous. This decision may not be taken as a
           precedent. No costs."

                                                             [Emphasis supplied]
G
          It may be noted that at that point this Court did not notice the
    discrepancy between the English and the Hindi translation of the Scheduled
    Tribes Order and proceeded on the premise that "Lohar" being mentioned in
    the Hindi version of the Order, the appellant was entitled to get the benefit
    of being a Scheduled Tribe. Even the counsel appearing on behalf of the
H
              PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA v. U.P.S.C. [BHAN, .I.)                  529
 Union of India did not point out to the Court the discrepancy and the order       A
 was passed treating the "Lohars" as members of the Scheduled Tribe. Rather
 the Union of India accepted the position that "Lohar" community is included
 in the Scheduled Tribe. This order was passed by the Court without any
 contest.

       The question regarding the claim of "Lohar" community to be considered      B
 as Scheduled Tribe came up before this Court in Nityanand Sharma 's case
(supra), which was initially listed before the two Judge-Bench which upon
 being shown the case of Shambhu Nath (supra) thought it fit to refer the
matter to three Judges. Incidentally, one of the Judges in the case of Nityanand
Sharma (supra) was also a party to the decision in the case of Shambhu Nath        C
(supra). The Court in Nityanand Sharma 's case (supra) examined in detail as
to whether there were three castes/tribes by the nomenclature of "Lohar",
"Lohara" and "Lohra" or whether "Lohar" and "Lohara" were one and the
same thing and if"Lohar" and "Lohara" were two different castes/tribes then
which one of them would qualify as a tribe or whether both will qualify as
Scheduled Tribe. The Court after noticing the ambiguity existing in the Hindi      D
translation of I 976 Scheduled Tribe Order held that whereas "Lohara" and
"Lohra" belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, the "Lohars" in State of Bihar
belonged to the Other Backward Classes.

       The Court was called upon to declare as to whether the Hindi translation
 was correct or original English text was correct. For this limited purpose the    E
 Bench looked into the authoritative ethnographic survey conducted in India
 by H.H. Risley. From the said survey the Court observed that "Lohar" is a
 sub-caste ofBarhai who work in iron. In Risley's Ethnographic Glossary the
 "Lohar" community has been dealt with in great detail. In the same Glossary
"Lohara" and "Lohra" are mentioned as tribe of Chota Nagpur. The Court             p
took notice of Article 348( I )(b) of the Constitution of India which provides
that the authoritative text of all bills to be introduced or amendments thereof
to be moved in either House of the Parliament shall be in English language.
The Bench after a detailed and considered judgment held that the original
version which was in English was the authoritative text whereas the Hindi was
the translated version. It was concluded that in the Hindi version there was       G
some defect in the translation because of which the "Lohar" community had
been claiming the advantage of being a "Scheduled Tribe" when actually they
were only a backward class and thus could not be given the benefit of
reservation as a Scheduled Tribe. It was further held by that Sambhu Nath 's
case (supra) could not be treated as authoritative in point as the same was        H
    530                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A based on concession.
           After Nityanand Shanna's judgment (supra), an effort was made by the
    members of the "Lohar'' community to claim themselves as Scheduled Tribe
    and the matter came up to the Supreme Court. A bench of two judges in Vi nay
    Prakash & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [ 1997] 3 SCC 406, by a speaking order
B   reaffirmed the view taken in the Nityanand Shanna's case (supra) and held
    that there was no question of the ''Lohar'' community being given the benefit
    of being Scheduled Tribe. The bench refused to refer the case of Nityanand
    Sharma (supra) to a larger bench. This is the second attempt being made by
    the members of the "Lohar" community to get the decision in Nityanand
C   Sharma 's case (supra) re-opened and referred to a larger bench for
    reconsideration.

           There is no dispute on the proposition that if the Presidential Notification
    does not contain any specific class or tribe or a part of, then it is for the
    Parliament to amend the law and the Schedule and include in and exclude from
D   the Schedule, a tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe
    or tribal community for the State. The Courts must read the lists of Scheduled
    Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Articles 341 and 342 read with Article 366
    ( 24) and (25) as they find them and accept their ordinary meaning. Neither
    the Government nor the judiciary can add or subtract to the List of Scheduled
    Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But, the Court would have the limited jurisdiction
E   to the extent of finding out whether the Community which claims the status
    as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the Schedule
    concerned. To that limited extent, the court would have the jurisdiction but,
    otherwise, the court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or
    substitute or declare synonyms to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
F   or parts thereof or group of such castes or tribes.

          Shri Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
    has contended that Nityanand's case (supra) was wrongly decided because:

            (a) Nityanand's case was relied on social data selected by the Judges
G               whereas such selection was prohibited by law;
            (b)   Nityanand's case failed to take into consideration the Hindi Text
                  which was authoritative in its own language.

         We do not find any substance in the submissions made by Shri Rajeev
    Dhavan. In Nityanand's case this Court examined in detail as to whether there
G
              PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA v. U.P.S.C. [BHAN. J.)                  531
were three casts/tribes by the nomenclature Lohra, Lohara and Lohar or A
whether Lohar and Lohara were one and the same thing and if Lohar and
Lohara were two different castes/tribes then which one of them would qualify
as a tribe or whether both will qualify as a tribe. This Court after detailed
consideration came to the .conclusion that the ambiguity was caused because
of Hindi translation of the 1976 Scheduled Tribe Order. The Court was called
upon to declare as to whether the Hindi translation was correct or the original B
English text was correct. For this limited purpose the Court looked at the
Ethnographic Survey conducted in India by H.H. Risley. After taking into
consideration the said survey, the Court observed that Lohar is a sub-caste
of Barhai who works in iron. In Risley 's Ethnographic Glossary the Lohar
Community has been dealt with in great detail. In the same Glossary Lohara C
and Lohra are mentioned as tribes of Chota Nagpur. The Court did not refer
to or rely upon the text of Risley to include or exclude a caste in the
Presidential Order or amend or alter the Presidential Order. Risley 's survey was
examined to remove the ambiguity which had crept in because of the
contradictory entries in English and Hindi versions of the Presidential Order.
                                                                                   D
       The Court after taking notice of Article 348(l)(b) of the Constitution of
India which provides that the authoritative text of all Bills to be introduced
or amendments thereof to be moved in either House of the Parliament shall
be in English language came to the conclusion that the Hindi version was a
translated version and the original version was the authoritative text and in      E
the Hindi version there was some defect in translation because of which
Lohar Community had been claiming the advantage of being a Scheduled
Tribe when actually they were only a backward class and thus could not be
given the benefit of reservation as a Scheduled Tribe. It was observed in
Nityanand's ca~e (supra)
                                                                                   F
       "19. Article 348(I)(b) of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding
       anything in Part II (in Chapter II Articles 346 and 34 7 relate to regional
       languages) the authoritative text of all bills to be introduced and
       amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament of all
       ordinances promulgated by the President... .. and all orders, rules,
       regulations and bye laws issued under the Constitution or under any G
       law made by the Parliament, shall be in the English language. By
       operation of sub-article (3) thereof with a non obstante clauses, where
       the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the
       English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the
       legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor H
    532                     SUPREME COURT REPOR rs [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A            of the State or in any order, rule regulation or bye-law referred to in
             paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the
             English language published under the authority of the Governor of
             the State in the official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the
             authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article.
             Therefore, the Act and the Schedule thereto are part of the Act, as
B            enacted by the Parliament in English language. It is the authoritative
             text. When the Schedules were translated into Hindi, the translator
             wrongly translated Lohara as Lohar omitting the letter 'a' while Lohra
             is written as mentioned in English version. It is also clear when we
             compare Part XVI of the Second Schedule relating to the State of West
c            Bengal, the word Lohar both in English as well as in the Hindi version
             was not mentioned. Court would take judicial notice of Acts of
             Parliament and would interpret the Schedule in the light of the English
             version being an authoritative text of the Act and the Second
             Schedule."

D           We are in the respectfully agreement with the view taken in Nityanand's
    case.

          Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that after
    the coming into force of the Official Languages Act, I963 the Hindi version
    was the authoritative text and in the case of ambiguity between Hindi and
E   English versions, the Hindi version would prevail. Article 348 of the
    Constitution clearly provides English to be the authoritative text in respect
    of Acts of Parliament, amendment to Acts subject to any law made by the
    Parliament. The Official Languages Act, 1963 vide Section 3 thereof provides
    for continuance of English language for official purposes of Union and for
F   use in Parliament. Section 5 provides for a Hindi translation of all Central Acts
    and Ordinances promulgated by the President or if any order or rule or
    regulation or bye-laws issued under the Constitution or under any Central
    Act. Section 6 deals with State Act with which we are not concerned in the
    instant case. From the conjoint reading of Article 348 of the Constitution and
    Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, English continues to
G   remain the authoritative text in respect of the Acts of Parliament.

          An attempt was made to get the judgment in Nityanand's case re-
    opened and considered by the larger Bench in Vinay Prasad's case (supra).
    Shri Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant in the
    instant case incidentally was the counsel in the said case as well. Submission
H
             PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA v. U.P.S.C. [BHAN. J.]                   533
similar to the one which has been made before us had been made in Vinay A
Prasad's case (supra) case as well. The Division Bench rejected the said
contention. We are in agreement with the view taken in the Vinay Prasad's
case (supra) as well.

      For the reasons stated above we do not find any merit in the civil appeal
and the writ petitions and dismiss the same with costs throughout.                B
N.J.                                    Appeal and writ petitions dismissed.