V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Indian Oil Corporation by Notification dated 23-7-2000 invited applications for allotment of petroleum retail outlet at Kalluru in Khammam District. The facility is reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) community. The petitioner applied for the same along with the fifth respondent. Interviews were held on 12-3-2001. The second respondent short listed the candidates placing the fifth respondent at Serial No. 1 and the petitioner at Serial No. 2. A complaint was made by the petitioner to official respondents disputing the social status and residence of the fifth respondent, that she is not a resident of Sathupally in vain. Therefore, a writ petition being W. P. No. 5261 of 2001 was filed. The same was disposed of on 19-9-2001 directing the second respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioner dated 20-3-2001 in accordance with the rules. ( 2 ) THE second respondent enquired into the complaint made by the petitioner and by order dated 9-11-2001 came to the opinion that the selection of the fifth respondent as empanelled candidate No. l survives and stands. The petitioner again filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in placing the fifth respondent at Serial No. 1 in the selection for retail out let at Kalluru treating her as SC candidate as illegal and arbitrary and violative of the provisions of A. P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 1993 ( the Act for brevity) and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to allot the petrol retail out let to the petitioner. This Court by order dated 13-12-2001 in W. P. M. P. No. 32157 directed the second respondent to refer the Caste Certificate of the fifth respondent to the fourth respondent to decide the correctness of the said certificate. The second respondent as well as the fifth respondent have filed two separate applications being W. V. M. P. No. 3637 of 2001 and W. V. M. P. No. 156 of 2002 respectively praying for vacating the interim order dated 13-12-2001. As the controversy requiring resolution is in a narrow compass, the writ petition itself was heard with the consent of the respective learned Counsel and is being disposed of at the admission stage. As the controversy requiring resolution is in a narrow compass, the writ petition itself was heard with the consent of the respective learned Counsel and is being disposed of at the admission stage. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Chidambaram raised two contentions. First, he contends that the fifth respondent belongs to Adi Andhra which is not one of the listed SCs in Khammam District and therefore she cannot be treated as SC candidate. Secondly, he contends that she married one Vajrala Raja Gopal alias Gopi, who belongs to Goldsmith community which is a Backward Class (BC) and therefore if she belongs to SC by reason of marriage she has to be treated as BC candidate and not as SC candidate. ( 4 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 Sri P. V. Sanjay Kumar and learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 Sri N. Rammohan Rao submit that as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 amended from time to time there are 59 SCs in Andhra Pradesh and there is no regional or area divisions among them. For the purpose of the Constitution all the 59 SCs are considered by Constitution itself as SCs. It is further contended by the learned Counsel that a woman belonging to SC is not disabled to claim the benefit of reservation merely because she marries a Backward Class person or a person belonging to forward caste. Sri P. V. Sanjay Kumar learned Standing Counsel also made additional submission that in the earlier writ petition filed before this Court the petitioner has not raised the ground that being Adi Andhra of Khammam District the fifth respondent is not SC candidate and therefore the principle of constructive res judicata is attracted. ( 5 ) THE short question that arises for consideration is whether the empanelment of the fifth respondent at Serial No. 1 for appointment as a dealer of retail petroleum outlet at Kalluru is sustainable ? ( 6 ) A copy of the affidavit in W. P. No. 5261 of 2001 is placed before me. In that writ petition the fifth respondent herein was arrayed as fourth respondent. The petitioner challenged the empanelment of the fifth respondent at Serial No. 1. ( 6 ) A copy of the affidavit in W. P. No. 5261 of 2001 is placed before me. In that writ petition the fifth respondent herein was arrayed as fourth respondent. The petitioner challenged the empanelment of the fifth respondent at Serial No. 1. The relevant pleading in writ affidavit therein reads as under: While so, to my utter dismay and surprise, the 4th respondent appears to have been got seal of approval from Selection Board for sanctioning of Dealership. In this connection it is respectfully submitted that though the 4th respondent belongs to S. C. Community, she has married one Vajraia Rajgopal (Gopi) who belongs to Goldsmith community which is B. C. it is needless to submit before the Hon ble Court that as per Hindu tradition wife embarrasses community of the husband. Since the husband of the fourth respondent belongs to B. C. community she has to be treated as BC only and not as SC. ( 7 ) THE fact that the fifth respondent belongs to SC community was never in doubt. Indeed, as seen from the averment in the earlier writ petition the petitioner also admits that she belongs to SC community, but she lost her status by reason of her marriage to BC candidate. The submission of the learned Counsel placing reliance on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956 cannot be countenanced. In the said order the list of SCs is divided as Part-I, Part-II and Part-III. Adi Andhra is recognised as SC throughout the State except, Hyderabad, Mahabubnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad, Medak, Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam and Nalgonda Districts. This is pressed into service to submit that as she is a resident of Khammam and belongs to Adi Andhra she cannot be treated as SC candidate. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was amended and modified subsequent thereto. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order which is now in force consists of 59 castes and sub-castes etc. , and Adi Andhra is found at Serial No. l in the list of SCs notified by the President of India under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The submission is therefore rejected. ( 8 ) WHETHER the fifth respondent by her marriage to BC candidate stands to loose the benefits provided by the State for SC candidates? The law is well-settled. The submission is therefore rejected. ( 8 ) WHETHER the fifth respondent by her marriage to BC candidate stands to loose the benefits provided by the State for SC candidates? The law is well-settled. A forward caste woman on her marriage with Scheduled Caste or Backward Class man will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15 (4) or 16 (4) as the case may be. Acquisition of status of SC by voluntary mobility into SC categories does not automatically give raise to claim for reservation. In the other situation where a SC woman on marrying a BC man or FC man does not suffer any disqualification for claiming benefits provided by the State for SCs. It is because till her marriage the woman had undergone handicaps and was subjected to disabilities disadvantages, indignities and other sufferings as other SC candidates. ( 9 ) IN Neelima v. A. P. Agricultural University, 1993 (1) ALT 458 (DB), a question arose whether a FC woman on marriage with ST or BC man acquires social status of the husband to enable her to claim reservation under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India. After elaborately referring to the decided cases, the Division Bench laid down that on marriage the bride acquires the caste or tribe of husband and that the question whether there was acceptance of such acquisition of caste or tribe by the members of that caste or tribe is irrelevant inasmuch as this is not acquisition of re-conversion to Hinduism nor change over by virtue of marriage. The Division Bench further held that: In this background of the exclusionary rule evolved insofar as citizens covered by creamy layer are concerned, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants for reservation, viz. , consequent upon their entering into the caste or tribe of their respective husbands they would be entitled to the reservations envisaged by Article 15 (4) of the Constitution, though neither of the two claimants underwent the stresses or strains or suffered the environmental disadvantages, the real backward class citizens faced, and on the other hand, they belonged to forward castes in Hindu society before their marriage that took place after they completed their graduation and thus were not socially and educationally backward, do not deserve appreciation inasmuch as acceding to the said submission would defeat the very provision and its purpose. By the device of marriage just before the time of applying for admission into the post-graduation courses if they were to be permitted to invoke the benefit and protection available to the classes of persons who really suffer from environmental disadvantages and incidental stresses and strains, it amounts to letting the purpose of reservation to whittle down, besides permitting entry of citizens better, if not, equally, placed as those constituting creamy layer. ( 10 ) ON the same reasoning, it must be held that mere marriage of the fifth respondent to a person belonging to BC does not erase the disadvantages she suffered till her marriage and Constitution does not deny the benefits conferred on such socially disadvantaged persons. The submission of the petitioner on this point is, therefore, rejected. ( 11 ) SRI K. Chidambaram learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that while passing the orders on 29-11-2001 has exceeded the scope of enquiry as ordered by this Court in earlier writ petition. He submits that the second respondent is not competent authority to enquire into the truth or validity of the caste certificate produced by the fifth respondent and he ought to have referred to the District Collector under the Act and the rules made thereunder. This submission is devoid of any merit. In the earlier writ petition - W. P. No. 5261 of 2001 this Court passed the following order. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the complaint made by the petitioner dated 20/03/2001 shall be considered by the Selection Board in accordance with the rules and take appropriate decision in this regard. The petitioner is directed to submit all the documents on which he is relying on in support of his contentions in the complaint dated 20/03/2001 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that in the enquiry sought to be conducted on the complaint made by the petitioner the fourth respondent also should be given necessary opportunity to participate in the enquiry. ( 12 ) THE Selection Board was directed by this Court to consider the complaint dated 20-3-2001 made by the petitioner. At that stage the petitioner s complaint was that the fifth respondent is not a member of SC as she did not conform to the necessary requirements of law. ( 12 ) THE Selection Board was directed by this Court to consider the complaint dated 20-3-2001 made by the petitioner. At that stage the petitioner s complaint was that the fifth respondent is not a member of SC as she did not conform to the necessary requirements of law. Before the second respondent a complaint was made that Adi Andhra caste to which the fifth respondent belongs is not recognised as SC in Telangana Area. This was considered in the background of the certificate produced by the fifth respondent which was given in the form prescribed by the Indian Oil Corporation in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The second respondent also considered two decisions of this Court and followed the judgment in Neelima s case (supra) and accepted the certificate produced by the fifth respondent. The second respondent has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the fifth respondent is member of SC and her empanelment is correct. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is however right under the Act and the rules made thereunder when allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining community certificate are made it is only the District Collector to initiate and conduct enquiry as per the Act and the rules. In this case, the ground raised is altogether different. Even now, it is open to the petitioner to file a complaint if so advised before the District Collector making out a specific case against the fifth respondent. Insofar as the selection of the fifth respondent by the second respondent is concerned, I am of the considered view that all the submissions raised by the petitioner are devoid of any merit and are liable to be rejected. ( 13 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs.