Delhi High Court
T. Varalakshmi vs Union Of India on 14 May, 1986
Equivalent citations: 30(1986)DLT222
JUDGMENT D.K. Kapur, C.J.
(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 1679/84. The petitioner was admitted in the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, on the focting that she was a Scheduled Tribe candidate ; she also got financial assistance on the same score, She was informed by a Memo., dated 9th December, 1983, that her Scheduled Tribe status was disputed by the Director of Tribal Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and she was directed to produce a certificate issued by the Director of Tribal Welfare, to the effect that she belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. She was informed that she would not be permitted to register for Ii trimester commencing From 9th January, 1984. A caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar Charminar Hyderabad was produced and she gave an undertaking that she may be provisionally allowed to register subject to verification of the caste certificate from the Competent Authority She Slated : "IN case it is found that j do not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community or my claim to S.T. Status is disputed, my registration may be cancelled forthwith "
She was then called upon on 30th May, 1984. to produce the certificate from the Collector and District Magistrte, Hyderabad, to the effect that her claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe is not under dispute and that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition on the ground that this very point had been urged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Writ Petition filed by her in that Court. By the time her Writ Petition was decided, she had already appeared in the final examination and her result had been declared. The judgment of the Chief Justice of the Andhra pradesh High Court was to the effect that it would not be in the interest of justice to cancel her resuit. It was in these circumstances that the appellant got a B Sc., degree from the College of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh University, Hyderabad. It appears that that University had conducted an enquiry from the Director, Tribal Welfare Andhra Pradesh, who after examining many details about the petitioner came to the conclusion that she did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community. As the petitioner did not continue with her study with the Andhra Pradesh University, it appears that the enquiry was not completed and then she moved to Delhi.
(2) The learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner had shifted without disclosing what had happened in the Andhra Pradesh University. As a result of the Writ Petition, the petitioner was allowed to continue with her studies and even took the examination, but the result was subject to the decision in the Writ Petition.
(3) The learned Singh Judge held that the Memorandum asking the petitioner to adduce the proof of her status was well within the jurisdiction of the Indian Council of Research Institute and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute. The learned Single Judge observed that it was surprising that in spite of the report of the Director, Tribal Welfare. Hyderabad, the petitioner had been admitted in Delhi on the fooling that nobody would know as to what had happened to her career in Hyderabad.
(4) After the admission of this appeal, an interim order was passed concerning the petitioner being interviewed for the Ph.D. Course. It also appears that the petitioner was treated as having patted the M.Sc. also. But, this was subject to the decision in the Letters Patent Appeal.
(5) We feel that we should not repeat the course adopted earlier of allowing the petitioner to get advantage of the M.Sc. degree or any other degree without getting the necessary certificate regarding her status.
(6) Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner clearly belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community. But, we find that the enquiry held by the Director of Welfare. Hyderabad reveals quite the contrary. The finding was that the petitioner's father belongs to Balija caste, but the claim of the petitioner was that she belonged to the Konda Kapu caste which is a Scheduled Tribe. The Director bad examined the back-ground of the petitioner's family and found that her father was the son of Sri Tota Narasimha Murthy and the 'Totas' were Baljis. It was further observed that Telega. Kapu and Balija are synonymous castes. The similarity between 'Kapu' and 'Konda Kapu' had led to the proposition that the petitioner belonged to the Konda Kapu caste.
(7) We are of the view that we are not in a fit position to determine whether or not the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, as this depends on the petitioner's background. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in upholding the Memo. issued to she petitioner, which has quite simply provided that she must produce a certificate from the Collector and District .Magistrate, Hyderabad, to the effect that her claim to Scheduled Tribe is not under dispate.
(8) We have also examined the letter issued by the Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Hyderabad to the Registrar of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, which is Annexure R-4 to the counter-affidavit. This letter clearly indicated that the petitioner belongs to the Kapu caste and not the Konda Kapu. It also hag the following passage : "THE village Munsif of Kalidindi village also stated that Sri Tota Ranga Rao is a native of Srurga vruksham village. Bhimavaram taluk. West Godavari district and he belongs to 'Kapu' caste and not to Kondakapu. The statement of the above are further supported by the electoral rolls of Kalindindi village where Sri Tota Ranga Rao and his wife (Paternal junior uncle and aunt of the student's father) are shown as Non Scheduled tribe voters."
(9) Along with this report, there were certain extracts There is of further reference in this report to Kum. T. Lakshmi Kumari, younger sister Oe the petitioner, in which it ii observed that she studied in the Intermediate course in D.M.R. College Bhimavaram and the entries in her college register do not support the claim of the petitioner. It was observed : "THE caste cannot vary from one member to another of the same family."
(10) The report being so damaging as far as the petitioner is concerned, it was necessary for the caste certificate to be produced by the petitioner. We would accordingly dismiss the appeal, but it will be open to the appellant to produce the necessary certificate required by the University in order that she might get her degree, if she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community. The appeal is dismissed with costs.