Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 829 (AP)

Panchadi Erraiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2014-07-07

S.V.BHATT

body2014
ORDER S.V. Bhatt, J. 1. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not considering the Caste Certificate of petitioner dated 28.10.2000 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada certifying the social status of petitioner as 'Budaga Jangam' for admission into B. Ed course, as illegal, unjust and also for a consequential direction to consider the candidature of petitioner for admission on the strength of such certificate into applicable course under Scheduled Caste category. This Court, through order dated 18.8.2010, directed the 2nd respondent to consider the candidature of petitioner under SC category and the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. 2. The 1st respondent filed petition to vacate the order dated 18.8.2010 and in the counter-affidavit filed the 1st respondent has stated about the applicable social status to petitioner and how the petitioner cannot avail the benefit as candidates belonging to SC category. In the counter-affidavit, it is nowhere stated that the certificate dated 28.10.2000 is either cancelled or any action under the Act has been taken by the competent authority. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the common order dated 8.7.2013 in WP Nos. 18807 of 2008 and Batch contends that this Court while disposing of the writ petitions directed respondents to consider the certificate issued to the petitioner therein as long as the same is not canvassed under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993. 4. Heard learned Government Pleader as well. 5. The scheme of the Act is clear that a person intending to claim benefit of reservation either for education or employment is required to take certificate issued by an authority specified under the Act. In the case on hand, admittedly the certificate was issued on 28.10.2000. If, either in fact or on law, the issuance of certificate is either illegal or untenable, it is needless to observe that the same shall be cancelled or withdrawn in the manner stipulated by the Act. As long as the certificate is operational, any attempt to selectively deprive the benefit thereunder will be contrary to the purpose and scheme of the Act. As long as the certificate is operational, any attempt to selectively deprive the benefit thereunder will be contrary to the purpose and scheme of the Act. To set aside ineligible certificates, procedure is provided in the Act and such procedure shall be followed, if a doubt on the certificate, for any reason, arises. 6. I have perused the common order of my learned brother order in WP No. 18807 of 2008 and batch dated 8.7.2013, and by following the same, the present writ petition is disposed of on the same terms. 7. Office to enclose a copy of the common order in WP No. 18807 of 2008 and batch, disposed of on 8.7.2013, along with this writ petition for comprehensive understanding of the condition with which the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.