MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER seeks a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in Rc. No. l641/88/j, dated 6-11-1988 through which proceedings, the Caste certificate obtained by the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he obtained the same by misrepresenting that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe, and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and pass such other order or. orders in the circumstances of the case. ( 2 ) PETITIONER claiming to be a member belonging to Holva community which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Andhra Pradesh, participated in the recruitment process undertaken by the State Bank of India for the post of Clerk- / cum-Cashier in the year 1986 and secured selection, in a vacancy reserved for scheduled Tribe candidate with roll no. 12130017 on the basis of his claim to be a member of Holva community. The second respondent accordingly appointed the petitioner by an order dated 9-5-1985 as clerk-cum-Cashier and since then he has been working in different places. The services of the petitioner were also confirmed on 13-12-1986. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, a false complaint was made by some persons who are inimical to him alleging that he has obtained a false Social Status Certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kotturu mandal of Srikakulam District as if he belongs to Holva community though he is a oriya Brahmin and that his community is known as Holuva which is not a Scheduled tribe Community at all. The Mandal revenue Officer by proceedings in rc. No. 1990/87-C dated 17-8-1988 reported that the Social Status Certificate issued to the petitioner on 15-8-1986 was genuine and despite such clarification, the second respondent-Bank referred the matter to the district Collector, Srikakulam for verification. The District Collector, srikakulam in turn directed the first respondent to enquire into the Social Status claim of the petitioner and decide the matter according to law. ( 4 ) PETITIONER claimed that pursuant to the orders of the District Collector, Srikakulam, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice to him in Rc. No. 1641/88/j dated 9-9-1988 asking him to submit written explanation. Pursuant thereto, petitioner claims to have submitted his written explanation on 29-9-1988 stating that he belongs to Holva Community which is a scheduled Tribe and further denied the allegation that he is a Oriya Brahmin. No. 1641/88/j dated 9-9-1988 asking him to submit written explanation. Pursuant thereto, petitioner claims to have submitted his written explanation on 29-9-1988 stating that he belongs to Holva Community which is a scheduled Tribe and further denied the allegation that he is a Oriya Brahmin. Petitioner also seems to have clarified that since his father is an illiterate man, without realizing the implication had got recorded in his school register that he belonged to Oriya brahmin Community, on which basis the social Status certificate of the petitioner issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer was cancelled through proceedings dated 6-11-1988, which according to the petitioner is unsustainable. Petitioner further claims that the cancellation of his Social Status certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue officer through the impugned order is without affording an opportunity to him and is violative of Articles 14,16 and 342 of the Constitution of India and therefore, seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the impugned order. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents, detailed counters have been filed. In the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent who is the revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda of srikakulam District, it is clarified that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain and produce appropriate evidence in support of his claim that he belonged to Holva community which is Scheduled Tribe Community. The first respondent indicated that petitioner has only produced certificates issued by M. Ps. and M. L. As. as if he belonged to Scheduled tribe Community. However, as these authorities are not competent to issue such certificates, such certificates were not taken into account. The petitioner failed to produce any positive evidence showing that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe community. At the time of admission of the petitioner in the Elementary School, the community of the petitioner was recorded as Oriya Brahmin and the petitioner s father was a signatory to the admission application and the father of the petitioner would not have given incorrect information about the social status of his son. It is indicated by the first respondent in the impugned proceedings that the petitioner had taken advantage of the phonetical similarity of the words holva" and "holuva" and though he belonged to Holuva community which is referable to Oriya Brahmin, the petitioner has claimed that he belonged to Holva community which is Scheduled Tribe. It is indicated by the first respondent in the impugned proceedings that the petitioner had taken advantage of the phonetical similarity of the words holva" and "holuva" and though he belonged to Holuva community which is referable to Oriya Brahmin, the petitioner has claimed that he belonged to Holva community which is Scheduled Tribe. It is indicated in the counter that the government in Memo No. 2599/f2/83-5, social Welfare Department, dated 19-4-1984 intimated to all concerned that Oriya speaking Oriya Brahmins are belonging to holuva Caste and are not entitled to obtain certificates as if they belonged Holva community which is a Scheduled Tribe. It is clarified in the counter that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to produce positive evidence in support of his claim that he belonged to Holva community and there is no truth in the allegation that he has been denied of an opportunity of being heard and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 6 ) WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and the learned government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent also. ( 7 ) IN the wake of the above submissions, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is denied of an opportunity while cancelling his Social Status Certificate issued to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer, kottur? ( 8 ) AS seen from the counter, which is not disputed by the petitioner, it is apparent that a show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner on 9-9-1988 through which he was asked to furnish a detailed explanation and he was also required to produce positive evidence before the appropriate authority in support of his claim that he belonged to holva community which is recognized as scheduled Tribe. It is also seen from the counter filed by the first respondent that the petitioner produced certificates obtained from M. Ps. and M. L. As. in support of his social status claim and also stated that his father being an illiterate man by mistake mentioned his caste as Oriya Brahmin in his elementary school admission form. The petitioner, however, failed to produce any other positive evidence in support of his claim that he belonged to Holva community. and M. L. As. in support of his social status claim and also stated that his father being an illiterate man by mistake mentioned his caste as Oriya Brahmin in his elementary school admission form. The petitioner, however, failed to produce any other positive evidence in support of his claim that he belonged to Holva community. Though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to produce sufficient evidence in support of his claim, he failed to take advantage of such opportunity and did not produce any evidence except the certificates issued by M. Ps. and M. L. As. showing that he belonged to Holva community. However, as they are not competent to issue caste certificates, the first respondent has rightly refused to act upon them. In the absence of any positive evidence produced by the petitioner in support of his claim that he belonged to Holva community, we are of the view, the first respondent is justified in cancelling the Social Status Certificate of the petitioner. In view of the facts narrated in the counter of the first respondent, it cannot be held that the petitioner is denied of an opportunity of being heard. We also hold that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in this case. ( 9 ) THOUGH the petitioner pleaded that his father being an illiterate man, without realizing the implication has mentioned his caste as Oriya Brahmin in his elementary school admission form and the same cannot be accepted as his original caste, we are not inclined to accept the same for the reason that a non-Brahmin would not enter the caste of his children as Brahmin in the school records.-It would be ridiculous to say that the father of the petitioner being a non- brahmin, would have entered the social status of the petitioner as that of Oriya brahmin. We also agree with the submission of the respondents that the petitioner has taken advantage of the phonetical similarity of the words "holuva" and Holva" though holuva community refers to Oriya Brahmin, and claimed that he belonged to holva community which is a Scheduled Tribe despite an entry in his elementary school admission record that his social status is oriya Brahmin which was recorded by none other than his natural father. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner made yet another effort by submitting that as provided under Section 5 of the Andhra pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, the petitioner may be permitted to prefer an appeal under Section 7 of the Act to the appropriate Authority to wriggle out of the situation from which he is placed. In order to appreciate this submission, it is necessary for us to trace the provisions obtaining under Section 5 of the said Act which reads thus:"5. Cancellation of the false community Certificate:- (1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes or Backward Classes has obtained a false Community Certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belongs to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, the District Collector may either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person, call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if he is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall, by notification, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation: provided that where an enquiry into the genuineness of a community certificate issued prior to the commencement of this Act has commenced and is pending at such commencement, the record thereof shall be transferred by the concerned authority to the District Collector and he shall continue the enquiry and conclude the same under this subsection. (2) The powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Government. " ( 11 ) AS seen from the above provisions, no doubt, the District Collector is empowered to initiate enquiry either suo motu or on a written complaint and enquire into the genuineness of a Caste Certificate obtained by a person belonging to SC/st/bc, but proviso to Section 5 of the Act clarifies that where an enquiry into the genuineness of the Community certificate issued prior to this commencement of this Act, has commenced and is pending at such commencement, the record shall be transferred by the concerned authority to the District Collector and he shall continue enquiry and conclude the same. ( 12 ) IN this case, enquiry into the social status claim of the petitioner was made and concluded prior to the commencement of this Act and through the impugned order the Social Status Certificate of the petitioner was cancelled by the first respondent on 6-11-1988 itself. Thus, when the enquiry with regard to the social status claim of the petitioner was concluded in the year 1988 itself by the appropriate authority as per the instructions of the Government which were in force at the relevant point of time, i. e. , much prior to the commencement of the Act, it would be rather difficult to accept the submission of the petitioner to permit him to make an appeal before the appropriate authority in terms of Section 5 (sic. 7) of the act, as no enquiry was pending in respect of the social status claim of the petitioner as on the date of promulgation of this Act, enabling him to take advantage of the provisions contained under Section 5 (sic. 7) of the Act. Therefore, we are of view, the petitioner cannot take shelter under Sec. 5 of the said Act and seek permission to file an appeal under Section 7 of the Act. ( 13 ) HAVING regard to our discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are inclined to hold that the petitioner has been afforded sufficient opportunity by the respondents to produce sufficient evidence in support of his claim that he belonged to Holva community which is a Scheduled Tribe and neither there is any violation of the principles of natural justice in this case. ( 14 ) FOR the above reasons, we see no merits in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, No costs.