Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 907 (AP)

V. Eswara Rao v. Govt. of A. P

2003-07-21

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
ORDER : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi in the South Eastern Railways the 5th respondent, in the year 1986 against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner claimed the social status on the basis of certificate dated 08-08-1986 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kotturu, Srikakulam District, the 4th respondent. Therefore, the 5th respondent forwarded the matter for verification of Social status of the petitioner to the District Collector Srikakulam, the 2nd respondent. Initially, the 2nd respondent caused an enquiry into the social status of the petitioner, and on coming to a conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, had addressed a letter dated 16-11-1987 to the 5th respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17168 of 1987. The Writ. Petition was dismissed through judgment dated 24-11-1987. Thereafter, petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1837 of 1989, which was also dismissed. 2. The 2nd respondent, took a stand before this court that what was addressed by the District Collector to the 5th respondent in 1987 was only a communication and the proceedings for cancellation of caste certificate would be taken up only after issuance of notice and after following the procedure prescribed by law. It is in this context, the petitioner came to be issued a notice requiring him to submit his explanation on or before 13-12-1990. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations against him. The 2nd respondent had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, the 3rd respondent to conduct an inquiry and record the submissions of the petitioner as well as the other connected persons. On 16-12-1990, the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry, and recorded the statements of the petitioner and other witnesses. He submitted a report on 17-4-1991. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed orders dated 30-11-1991 holding that the petitioner does not belong to Schedule Tribe and the caste certificate dated 8-8-1986 issued to him by the 4th respondent, was cancelled. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent had recorded submissions of himself and three other individuals, which were consistent to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent had recorded submissions of himself and three other individuals, which were consistent to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He alleges that on the basis of a statement said to have been made by a village servant, 3rd respondent has threatened him and three other witnesses and had forcibly obtained signatures on the revised statements. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent in this regard and complains that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, which in turn is prepared on the Statements of the petitioner and the witnesses, recorded by using threat and coercion. 4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have narrated the sequence of events giving rise to passing of the impugned order. As regards the allegation of the threat and coercion, by the 3rd respondent, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that on receipt of the representation from the petitioner and other witnesses, 2nd respondent, had called for a report from the 3rd respondent who in turn had submitted a detailed report on 17-4-1991. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has denied the allegation and had narrated the events that took place on 16-12-1990. 5. Sri Duba V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the social status of the petitioner was certified by the 4th respondent on the basis of his verification and the same could not have been cancelled. He had extensively argued about, the coercion said to have been caused by the 3rd respondent. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare on the other hand submits that the petitioner had invented the theory of coercion only to overcome the fabricated version, which he has presented before the authorities from time to time. He submits that, ever since the initiation of proceedings way back in the year 1987, he has been dragging the matter on one pretext or the other. 7. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent had coerced the petitioner and other witnesses to depose that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. This is a pure question of fact. 7. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent had coerced the petitioner and other witnesses to depose that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. This is a pure question of fact. Further, the official proceedings are required to be presumed to he proper, till they are established to be otherwise. All the same, with a view to remove the cloud in the matter, this court had summoned two witnesses, viz., Varahala Naidu and Ninnnagadda Ramulu, who were said to have been threatened. The other witness, who is said to be the maternal uncle of the petitioner, is reported dead. The witnesses, who attended this court, were not able to state anything consistently. Therefore, they were permitted to submit affidavits. Both the individuals have filed affidavits, which are verbatim similar. 8. This court does not find anything substantial either from these affidavits or from the complaint said to have been made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent; against the 3rd respondent; to discredit the validity of the proceedings undertaken by the 3rd respondent. Even according to the petitioner his father left the village roughly about 43 years back for Kharagpur and settled there. The petitioner too was living at that place. He came all the way to Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of securing the social status certificate. Nobody hailing from his family deposed during the course of enquiry. One Mr. Dhandasi whom the petitioner claimed to be his maternal uncle had issued contradictory statements. Whatever be the truth or otherwise of that allegation, from the statement of the petitioner, which is extracted in the impugned order, it is clear that he had approached the said individual two days prior to the enquiry, to state that he is his maternal uncle. 9. The allegation against the 3rd respondent is that he wanted the petitioner and three other witnesses to contradict the statements but himself and his maternal uncle Dhandasi refused. However, the complaint discloses that only Dhandasi was taken in a jeep by the 3rd respondent and after travelling upto a distance he signed the revised statement. Nothing is stated as to whether the petitioner resisted at all to sign the revised statement, or the manner in which he is said to have been coerced. Therefore, this court is not inclined to believe the version presented by the petitioner. 10. Nothing is stated as to whether the petitioner resisted at all to sign the revised statement, or the manner in which he is said to have been coerced. Therefore, this court is not inclined to believe the version presented by the petitioner. 10. Except the allegations as to coercion, nothing is pointed out to indicate that the impugned order suffers in law or on facts. The 2nd respondent has discussed every aspect of the matter at length and recorded his findings duly taking into account the explanation offered by the petitioner. As long as no procedural irregularities are pointed out or said to have been committed by the 2nd respondent, this court cannot interfere with his finding. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner undertakes not to claim any benefit of the social status in future and that his interests may be protected. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had secured the employment on the basis of caste certificate, and the same stood cancelled. In view of the stay granted by this court, the order of cancellation could not be given effect to, for more than a decade. It is not known as to whether the petitioner was extended the benefit of any promotion. This court is also not inclined to embark on, as to whether it is permissible for the 5th respondent to continue the petitioner in service, denying him the benefit of any promotion, earned on the basis of reservation. With the upholding of the orders of the 2nd respondent and the petitioner himself expressing his readiness to forego the claim of the social status, none of the members of the family of the petitioner shall be entitled for the benefit of reservation. So far as the question as to whether the petitioner be permitted to remain in service denying him the benefit of reservation in the matter of promotions only is concerned, it is for the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the 5th respondent. On such a representation being made, the 5th respondent shall take the same into account, before passing orders consequent on the cancellation of Caste certificate of the petitioner. 13. With the above observation the Writ petition is dismissed no costs.