Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 788 (AP)

S. Vijaykumar v. District Educational Officer

2013-09-20

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, S.V.BHATT

body2013
Judgment : LNR, J. 1. The petitioner is a resident of Utnoor Village and Mandal of Adilabad District and he is a Scheduled Tribe. His social status as well as the nativity were certified by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Utnoor through certificate, dated 28.05.2001 in exercise of power under A.P.(Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder (for short ‘the Rules’). The Government has taken up a special drive for appointing the S.T. candidates in the agency areas as teachers of different categories through District Selection Committee (for short ‘the DSC’) in the year 2012. The petitioner submitted application and in the process, he was selected. 2. However, at the time of issuing orders of appointment, the certificates submitted by him were verified and a doubt was expressed about the genuinity of a certificate, dated 03.02.2006 which reflected that the petitioner is a native of Utnoor Village and Mandal in the agency area. The DSC referred the matter to the District Collector, Adilabad, 2nd respondent herein. He in turn referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the committee’) constituted under the Act and the Rules. The committee is said to have issued notice to the petitioner and thereafter submitted a report, taking the view that the certificate dated 03.02.2006 is not genuine. Acting upon the report, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 01.09.2013 cancelling the certificate. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4057 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, ventilating his grievance. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A., through its order, dated 12.09.2013, on the ground that the petitioner has to avail the remedy of appeal under the Act and the Rules. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Sri A.Nagarajarao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the certificate, dated 03.02.2006 is not referable to the Act and the Rules and the impugned order is without jurisdiction. He states that the social status as well as the nativity of the petitioner was certified under the certificate, dated 28.05.2001 and that the same is intact. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that once the 2nd respondent passed order in exercise of power under the Act and Rules, the petitioner has to work out his remedies, in accordance with law. 5. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that once the 2nd respondent passed order in exercise of power under the Act and Rules, the petitioner has to work out his remedies, in accordance with law. 5. The drive initiated by the Government in the year 2012 was to appoint Scheduled Tribe candidates living in the agency areas as teachers. Here itself, it needs to be noted that in none of the Districts in the State, the entire District is notified as agency area. Parts of some Districts are notified as agency areas and remaining parts of such Districts continue to be non-agency areas. The Scheduled Tribes from non-agency areas were getting selected and thereby, the Scheduled Tribes within the agency areas were deprived of the benefit. Therefore, consideration for the appointment to the posts of teachers taken up by the DSC was confined to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and natives of the agency area. 6. To determine whether or not a candidate can be treated as resident of agency area, guidelines were also issued. They are to the effect that the candidates or their ancestors must be residents of the agency area atleast from the year 1950 onwards. 7. The petitioner was born and brought up in Utnoor and his education was at that place. After verifying the relevant records, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a caste, nativity and date of birth certificate, dated 28.05.2001 prescribed under the Act and the Rules. None of the respondents has doubted the genuinity of that certificate. Strictly speaking, in view of the certificate referred to above, there was no necessity for the petitioner to submit any other certificate in proof of his nativity. Since the notification mandates that a separate ‘certificate of proof of local scheduled tribe community’ has to be submitted, the petitioner obtained such a certificate on 03.02.2006. That certificate was doubted by the DSC and it was referred to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent proceeded as though the certificate, dated 03.02.2006 was issued under the Act and the Rules and accordingly adopted the procedure prescribed thereunder. The matter was referred to the committee and on the basis of the report submitted by the committee, the order, dated 01.09.2013 was passed cancellnig the said certificate. The 2nd respondent proceeded as though the certificate, dated 03.02.2006 was issued under the Act and the Rules and accordingly adopted the procedure prescribed thereunder. The matter was referred to the committee and on the basis of the report submitted by the committee, the order, dated 01.09.2013 was passed cancellnig the said certificate. The Tribunal took the view that the petitioner has to avail the remedy of appeal under the Act and the Rules. 8. It is no doubt true that in case, the certificate is issued under the Act and the Rules and the same is cancelled by the District Collector, after following the procedure prescribed, the only remedy for the aggrieved party is to prefer an appeal. It has already been mentioned that the only certificate that can be traced to the Act and the Rules is the one, dated 28.05.2001. No one has expressed any doubt about the genuinity of that certificate. The doubt was expressed only about the certificate, dated 03.02.2006, which did nothing more than reflecting a small facet of what is already contained in the certificate, dated 28.05.2001. There was no basis or justification for the 2nd respondent in referring the matter to the committee, when the certificate, dated 03.02.2006 was not at all referable to the Act and the Rules. The whole exercise was arbitrary and a genuine Scheduled Tribe was unlawfully denied the opportunity of being appointed. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.4057 of 2013 is set aside. Further, the proceedings, dated 01.09.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent are set aside and the resultant notification is cancelled. The DSC and the appointing authority therein shall consider the case of the petitioner by treating him as Scheduled Tribe and native of Utnoor village and Mandal and finalise the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is issued orders of appointment, his appointment shall date back from the date on which others have been appointed, for the purpose of seniority but not for emoluments. 9. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.