Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 822 (AP)

S. M. Rajeswara Rao v. Govt. of A. P.

2002-07-02

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2002
O R D E R The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 23-8-1991 issued by 3rd respondent through which the caste certificates issued to the petitioner by several authorities certifying that he belongs to ‘Mannervarlu caste’, were cancelled, The petitioner was initially selected in the year 1976 as Junior Assistant by the District Selection Committee, Nizamabad. On the basis of the certificates issued by the then M.L.A., by name, Sri Y. Satyanarayana, and Assistant Engineer, P.W.D, Pochampad Project, he was treated as belonging to Scheduled Tribe and was appointed against the post reserved therefor. Thereafter, he was selected by the A.P.P.S.C. in the year 1971 to the post of Sub-inspector of Excise. He was appointed against the vacancy reserved for, Scheduled Tribe and he joined the service on 27-11-1977. Thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector of Excise through orders dated 12-10-1983. His probation was declared in that post on 26-7-1986. On the basis of certain complaints as regards the social status of the petitioner, the Director of Social Welfare has undertaken an enquiry and submitted a report dated 7-1-1986. In his report, the Directorate of Social Welfare found that the petitioner belongs to ‘Velama’ caste and not ‘Mannervarlu’. A further discussion was also undertaken to the effect that Mannervarlu caste is not an independent caste and it is only a part of Kolam- Mannervarlu. Almost, at the same time, enquiry was undertaken in the Police Department also against the petitioner and fifteen others regarding their social status. The Special Inspector General of Police (Crimes), Hyderabad, submitted his report dated 18-8-1996 after investigating into the matter. In his report, he found that all the concerned persons including the petitioner belonged to Mannervarlu Caste. It was further his opinion that Mannervarlu caste was not included in the Scheduled Tribes at all. In accordance with the procedure contemplated under the G.O.Ms.No.282, Social Welfare (J2) Department, dated 19/12/1998, the 3rd respondent has initiated proceedings against the petitioner and after a detailed enquiry, passed the impugned order cancelling the caste certificates issued to the petitioner. The proceedings are challenged on several grounds. One of the grounds is that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 19-12-1988 conferring power upon the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders where the social status of individuals are in dispute. Government also issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.3, Social Welfare (J2) Department, dated 18-1-1989. The proceedings are challenged on several grounds. One of the grounds is that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 19-12-1988 conferring power upon the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders where the social status of individuals are in dispute. Government also issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.3, Social Welfare (J2) Department, dated 18-1-1989. where-under it is stated that if there are conflicting reports by authorities of various departments about the caste of the particular individual, such matter shall be referred to the High Level Committee constituted under the G.O. It was further provided that the High Level Committee shall consider the conflicting reports and submit its own report to the Government. On the basis of report, the Government shall pass appropriate orders. The complaint of the petitioner is that though there were conflicting reports as to the social status of the petitioner by the Director of Social Welfare on the one hand and Special I.G.P (Crimes) on the other, the matter was not referred to the High level Committee and the order passed by the 3rd respondent was without jurisdiction. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have narrated the various facts leading to the passing of impugned orders. As regards the contention of the petitioner that there were conflicting reports, it is sought to be projected that as long as the purport of the reports is one and the same, that is, to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the impugned proceedings. Heard Sri E.Monohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Noushad, Ali, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. Though arguments were addressed touching upon the fact as to whether the petitioner belongs to Mannervarlu caste, having regard to the limitations on the enquiry into the disputed questions of fact in writ proceedings, it is not possible for this Court to undertake any discussion or record any finding on the same. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that .once there were conflicting reports as to the social status of the petitioner, it was incumbent that the matter be dealt with in accordance with the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No-3, dated 18-1-1989, and consequently, it was not competent for the 3rd respondent to undertake the enquiry and pass the Impugned order. G.O.Ms.No.282 on the one hand and G.O.Ms.No.3 on the other though deal with the same subject i.e., cancellation of caste certificates, operate in two different fields. While the former gets attracted where there are no conflicting reports from various departments of the Government, the later gets attracted once such conflicting reports exist. G.O.Ms.No.3 has a definite purpose to serve. A reading of the same indicates that instances were existing where different departments of the Government were undertaking the enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the social status of persons who availed the benefit of admission into professional courses or Government services reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. It was felt that as long as such conflicting reports exist, it is not advisable to act on the basis of one such report and ignore the other. To assign the function of resolving the controversy among the conflicting reports to the District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate, who is empowered under G.O.Ms.No.282, has its own limitations. The reports normally emerge from the offices of the Heads of the Department or authorities who are superior to the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate as the case may be. To entrust the task of resolution of the conflict of the reports submitted by the superior .authorities to a inferior authority is by no means permissible. It was in this context that a High Level Committee comprising of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Secretary, Law Department, Director of Tribal Welfare, Director of Social Welfare and Deputy Secretary. Social Welfare was constituted to resolve the controversy under G.O.Ms.No.3. In this case. it is not in dispute that there were two conflicting reports, one by the Deputy Director of Social Welfare and the other by the Special Inspector General of Police. The existence of these conflicting reports automatically attracts the procedure stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.3. Once that was so, it was not competent for the 3rd respondent to undertake or proceed with the enquiry. Therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. Similar situation arose before this Court in W.P.No.12766 of 1992. Having noticed the purport of the two G.Os, this Court has set aside the order passed by the authority under G.O.Ms.No.282. Therefore, the impugned order also deserves to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside. Therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. Similar situation arose before this Court in W.P.No.12766 of 1992. Having noticed the purport of the two G.Os, this Court has set aside the order passed by the authority under G.O.Ms.No.282. Therefore, the impugned order also deserves to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the legislature has enacted Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, (Act 16 of 1993). This Act has constituted authorities and stipulated the procedure to deal with the matter of cancellation of caste certificates. With the enactment of this Act. the procedure stipulated under the executive instructions issued from to time stands superseded. Since, the order passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside, the matter has to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said Act and the Rules made there-under. The matter is accordingly remitted to the authority constituted under the said Act for fresh consideration and disposal. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. --X—