38. We do not see, therefore, justification for the conclusion in the instant case that because the petitioner is allegedly a Christian he is not a Scheduled Caste, namely, Hindu Mahar. Such a conclusion could have been recorded only after the Committee had concrete proof before it that as the petitioner claimed to be Hindu Mahar, his religion has a definite bearing. That is therefore relevant for the enquiry. There is therefore, justification to hold that if the petitioner was not a Hindu, then, he cannot be a Hindu Mahar. For a moment, we accept that such findings or conclusion could be reached but when Article 366 was referred containing definitions, even there, the Constitution clarifies that unless the context otherwise requires, the expressions therein have the meaning assigned to them, and Clauses 24 and 25 of Article 366 contains the same definitions, of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and referrable to Articles 341 and 342. If the petitioner claims to be belonging to Hindu Mahar Scheduled Caste, he has suppressed from the Committee earlier, as alleged by the respondent no.4 that he embraced Christianity. Being a Christian, then, the whole foundation of his claim falls to the ground. Such a conclusion can be reached only when there is solid proof of the petitioner embracing Christianity.
