JUDGMENT : A.V.Sesha Sai, J. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.535 of 2008 is the appellant in the present Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Appellant herein calls in question the order dated 04.05.2021 passed in the said Writ Petition by the learned single Judge. 2. The appellant herein-writ petitioner, after serving the Telecom Department, retired from service on 31.05.2014. On the complaint lodged by Scheduled Tribe Employees’ Association, action was initiated by the respondent-authorities under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’), and the District Collector-2nd respondent herein, vide orders in Roc.No.C3/1972/2002, dated 31.10.2004, cancelled the caste certificate of the writ appellant. Aggrieved by the said order of cancellation passed by the District Collector under Section 5(1) of the Act, the appellant herein preferred statutory appeal under Section 7 of the Act before the State Government. The State Government, by way of G.O.Ms.No.140, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 26.12.2007, dismissed the said appeal filed by the appellant, confirming the order passed by the District Collector dated 31.10.2004. 3. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said order passed by the State Government, confirming the order passed by the District Collector, dated 31.10.2004, Writ Petition No.535 of 2008 came to be filed. Learned single Judge, by way of the questioned order dated 04.05.2021, dismissed the Writ Petition. In the above background, the writ petitioner has come up before this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal. 4. Heard Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the writ appellant (writ petitioner), Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-BSNL. 5. According to the learned counsel for the writ appellant, the order passed by the learned single Judge is erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the learned single Judge passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the material available on record. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the learned single Judge passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the material available on record. It is further contended by the learned counsel that there is absolutely no proof to show that the appellant herein was appointed against a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe community and there is also no proof to show that the appellant herein availed the benefit arising out of the community certificate. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the appellant herein belongs to a backward class, and on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities, the impugned action was initiated and for no fault on the part of the appellant herein, the appellant herein is sought to be penalised. 6. On the other hand, strongly resisting the Writ Appeal, learned Government Pleader for the Social Welfare and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-BSNL contend that there is absolutely no illegality, nor there exists any infirmity, in the impugned action, and in the absence of the same, the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be faulted nor it is amenable for any correction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is also their submission that even during her service, the appellant herein availed the benefit of promotion extended on the basis of her status as regards the caste. 7. In the above background, now, the issue which this Court is called upon to answer in the present Writ Appeal is, “Whether the order passed by the learned single Judge is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?” 8. The information available before this Court manifestly discloses that the writ appellant herein was appointed in the Telecom Department in the year 1981, and obviously, on the basis of the complaint made by the Service Association, the respondent-authorities pressed into service the provisions of the Act 16 of 1993, and the District Collector-2nd respondent herein, after holding enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, cancelled the caste certificate of the appellant herein. Thereafter, the Appeal filed by the appellant herein before the State Government was also dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Collector. Thereafter, the Appeal filed by the appellant herein before the State Government was also dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Collector. The orders passed by the State Government and the District Collector are placed on record along with the Writ Appeal as material papers. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the writ appellant that the writ appellant herein availed the benefit of promotion which the Department extended for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. 9. It is a settled and well-established principle of law that this Court, in the matters of present nature, cannot sit over, the orders of the quasi-judicial authorities, as an Appellate Authority and cannot undertake threadbare analysis of the facts, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on this Court. The District Collector-2nd respondent herein, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the Rules made thereunder, conducted enquiry and arrived at a conclusion that the writ appellant herein obtained the certificate by fraudulent means. It is further clear from the orders passed by the State Government on the Appeal filed by the writ appellant herein, that the State Government, after extensively considering various issues raised by the writ appellant, came to the conclusion against the appellant and confirmed the order passed by the District Collector. In the absence of any perversity or procedural infirmity and jurisdictional error in the action taken by the authorities, the said orders passed by the authorities in exercise of the powers conferred under the statute cannot be found faulted. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge also clearly indicates that after meticulously examining all the issues raised by the writ appellant as well as the respondents herein, the learned single Judge arrived at conclusions and eventually dismissed the Writ Petition. Having regard to the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge in the order under challenge, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the said well-articulated order passed by the learned single Judge. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.