Telangana High Court
Rathod Vijay Kumar vs Social Welfare Cv2 Department on 18 January, 2022
Author: P. Madhavi Devi
Bench: P. Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.5285 OF 2003
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Proceedings No.B7/2955/97 dt.02.07.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent and as confirmed by the 1st respondent by its Proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Social Welfare (CV2) Department, dt.14.02.2003 and to quash the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe candidate belonging to Lambada caste and residing at Dharmaraopet Village, Kasipet Mandal. He was appointed as a driver in the APSRTC, Mancherial Depot in the year 1987. There was a complaint received by the respondents that the petitioner does not belong to ST category and that he secured the job as a driver by producing a bogus caste certificate. On the basis of the alleged complaint, the 2nd respondent referred the matter to the District Scrutiny Committee for enquiry under the provisions of A.P. SC/ST/BCs Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 16 of 1993. Pursuant to the reference by the 2nd respondent, the District Scrutiny Committee directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet to W.P.No.5285 of 2003 2 conduct a detailed enquiry and he submitted a report dt.24.03.1999 stating that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner is a genuine one and that he has been continuously residing in Adilabad District for the past 23 years. The 2nd respondent however issued a show-cause notice dt.14.05.2001 to the petitioner seeking his explanation with regard to the alleged complaint. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.05.2001. The 2nd respondent however cancelled the caste certificate vide proceedings No.B7/2955/97 dt.02.07.2001. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not given any reason as to why he is not accepting the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet and has erroneously cancelled his caste certificate and due to the said order, the petitioner was kept under suspension on 11.01.2002 by the Depot Manager, Mancherial Depot. Against the order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred an Appeal to the 1st respondent and the orders of the 2nd respondent were stayed by the 1st respondent and consequently, the petitioner's suspension order was revoked and was reinstated and was working as driver in APSRTC Mancherial Depot. The 1st respondent however vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Social Welfare (CV2) Department, dt.14.02.2003 confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, against which this Writ Petition is filed.
3. When the matter was taken up for admission, this Court vide orders dt.28.03.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.6967 of 2003 refused to grant interim suspension of the order of the 1st respondent dt.14.02.2003, but observed that "if the Writ Petition is subsequently allowed, the W.P.No.5285 of 2003 3 petitioner shall be entitled to be restored to the present position, if the same is altered in the meanwhile." Thereafter, the case came up for hearing in 2015 and again in 2019 and in 2021.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Ravi Mohan, while relying on the averments in the writ affidavit, referred to the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet and stated that the petitioner was adopted by his maternal uncle and was residing in Dharmaraopet Village from 1970 onwards and that Lambadas were included in ST List in the year 1977 and therefore, the petitioner's caste certificate was valid and was erroneously cancelled under wrong impression that he did not reside in Dharmaraopet Village in 1977. He placed reliance upon the evidence of the parties recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet. He submitted that the Collector has given contrary findings. He submitted that at one place, he held that the school records were not available and in another place, he held that the record is blank. He submitted that the findings of the Collector are not on the basis of any record and that the petitioner cannot be asked to produce evidence which is not in existence. He therefore prayed for restoration of the petitioner's caste certificate.
5. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and also placed reliance upon the contentions of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed. He also relied upon the order of this Court, i.e., W.P.No.5285 of 2003 4 A.P. High Court, in the case of G. Durga Prasad Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others1.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is found that by order dt.27.07.1977, Lambadas were included in the List of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Andhra Pradesh. According to the petitioner, he was adopted in the year 1970 by his maternal uncle and thereafter he was admitted in a school in Adilabad District and he had continued to study in the said school. Therefore, according to him, as on the date of notification, he was resident of Andhra Pradesh and falls within the category of Scheduled Tribes and the caste certificate issued by the appropriate authority is genuine and valid.
7. It is seen that the petitioner's father belonged to Maharashtra State and in the said State, Lambadas are not ST category. The claim of the petitioner is that he was adopted by his maternal uncle and therefore, he was shifted to Dharmaraopet Village of Kasipet Mandal in 1970 and he studied there, and thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet had conducted an enquiry by recording the statements of (i) the maternal uncle of the petitioner, Azmeera Lakya Naik, who is alleged to have adopted the petitioner, (ii) Azmeera Shanker, the son of Azmeera Lakya Naik, (iii) Azmeera Bkikya Naik, the younger brother of Azmeera Lakya Naik, (iv) Bhikya Ladiram and Banoth 1 2012 (3) ALD 662 W.P.No.5285 of 2003 5 Pantulu, the brothers-in-law of Azmeera Lakya Naik, who all confirmed that the petitioner was adopted by Azmeera Lakya Naik and was later married to his daughter and 7 acres of land was also given to him. The statements of the villagers were also recorded to this effect and on the basis of these statements as well as the evidence that landed property was given to the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet has held the caste certificate to be genuine. However, the District Collector, Adilabad has perused the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, i.e., the record sheet bearing No.140186 in original issued by the Head Master, M.P.P.S., Dharmaraopet of Kasipet Mandal, which shows the date of admission of the candidate in the school as 18.06.1970 and the date of promotion as 24.04.1975 and the date of birth as 10.04.1964. This certificate was thereafter referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer for verification. The District Collector in this regard observed as under:
"In response to the above, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet has submitted his report stating that on verification of the Record sheet book No;1402, the duplicate copy of certificate No;140186 is not found. He has seized the Record sheet book and sent to Collectorate. On 19-03-2001, the Committee met and examined the report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet and verified the Admission Register of the Primary School Dharmaraopet of Kasipet Mandal. The Record Sheet Register bearing No. 1402 contains pages from Sl.No.140101to140200. The leaves of the said book from Sl.No.140101 to 140138 are used and the leaves thereafter are blank. In the book, the leaf bearing No.140186 is not available. Thus, it is established beyond doubt that the blank leaf has been detached from the book and fabricated W.P.No.5285 of 2003 6 certificate to prove that the candidate got admission in 1970 in M.P.P.S. Dharmaraopet. During the deliberations of Committee, the Candidate was also present. He pleaded innocence and maintained that he migrated before 27-07-1977 to Andhra Pradesh. But, the Committee felt that there is no correct evidence. The evidence filed by him is totally false and manipulated as seen from the Admission Register and Serial Number of the Certificate and also reported by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet. Hence, the District Scrutiny Committee felt that he has not produced correct evidence that he is a bonafied resident in Andhra Pradesh prior to 27-07-1977. Hence, the Certificate as evidenced by the Admission Register and Serial Number of the Certificate, is bogus and manipulated."
This finding of fact by the District Collector has not been rebutted by the petitioner with any evidence to the contrary, except for relying on the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kasipet.
8. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
9. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 18.01.2022 Svv