Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 512 (TS)

V. Sailu v. State Of Telangana

2020-06-26

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT T. Vinod Kumar, J. - The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing to stay of all further proceedings in C1/3056/2016, dated 13.01.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent-District Collector, Hyderabad, till disposal of the revision / appeal filed before respondent No.1-State of Telangana. 2. The above case is taken up for hearing today i.e., 26.06.2020, through Video Conferencing. 3. Heard Sri Zulfaquar Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and learned Government Pleader for Labour & Employment. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to Yanadi community, a notified Scheduled Tribe Community and on the basis of caste certificate showing the petitioner as belonging to ST community, the petitioner got employment and is presently discharging duties as Watchman with ITI, Mallepally viz., 4th respondent institute, in the present writ petition. While that being the position, it appears that on the basis of the complaint made in the year 2016, with regard to the caste certificate of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent authority has caused enquiry and concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Yanadi-Scheduled Tribe community and cancelled the caste certificate, by order in proceedings No.C1/3056/2016 order dated 13.01.2020. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that being aggrieved by the said proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent authority, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the 1st respondent on 05.03.2020. Along with the said revision, the petitioner also claims to have filed an application seeking stay of all further proceedings, in pursuance of the order passed by the 3rd respondent authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that both the revision as well as stay application are pending consideration before the 1st respondent authority. 6. While the said revision and stay application are pending consideration before the 1st respondent authority, the 2nd respondent authority has now issued a notice dated 21.05.2020 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the action should not be taken against him for getting appointed to the post earmarked to the ST quota. 6. While the said revision and stay application are pending consideration before the 1st respondent authority, the 2nd respondent authority has now issued a notice dated 21.05.2020 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the action should not be taken against him for getting appointed to the post earmarked to the ST quota. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending revision before the 1st respondent, if the 2nd respondent proceeds further on the basis of the show cause notice and passes an order, the entire revision preferred by him before the 1st respondent would be futile exercise and therefore, seeks stay of all further proceedings, in pursuance of the order passed by the 3rd respondent. 7. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that the 3rd respondent authority upon receiving the complaint in the year 2016 caused an enquiry as regards the claim of the petitioner belonging to Yanadi - ST community, and based on the recommendations of the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) and only after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order by considering all material on record. 8. The learned Government Pleader for Labour and Employment submits that having regard to the order passed by the 3rd respondent authority and the directions given by the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings and issued notice dated 21.05.2020, which are only consequential, since the petitioner got employed to the post earmarked for ST quota, which certificate now stands cancelled by virtue of the order passed by the 3rd respondent. 9. Having given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective authorities as above and considering the fact that the petitioner is 59 years old and is at the fag end of service and the 3rd respondent authority having taken three years to pass the impugned order after receiving the complaint, and also having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already preferred the revision against the order of 3rd respondent before the 1st respondent authority, along with stay application, which are admittedly stated to be pending, this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent authority can be directed to dispose of the said revision/stay application preferred by the petitioner herein within the time frame. Further, this Court is of the considered opinion that till such time a decision is taken by the 1st respondent authority on the revision petition/stay application filed by the petitioner herein, the notice issued by the 2nd respondent authority is to be interdicted, as otherwise if any order is passed by the said authority on the basis of the order of 3rd respondent, even if the petitioner succeeds at a later stage in the revision proceedings, the petitioner cannot be put back in employment, as by that time, the petitioner would cross the age of superannuation. 10. XXX XXX XXX XXX 11. Having regard to the above, the 1st respondent authority is hereby directed to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.01.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent authority, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time the 1st respondent authority adjudicates and passes order on the revision preferred by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall not proceed further in pursuance of the show cause notice issued. 12. It is made clear that taking advantage of the direction given by this Court directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner, the petitioner shall not seek time /adjournment in the revision proceeding for undue long period, thereby preventing the 1st respondent authority from passing an order within the time prescribed by this Court. 13. Subject to the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.