Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 856 (AP)

Dabba Yesuratnarn v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-12-20

KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

body2021
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not digitalizing the permanent community certificates of the petitioners herein, even though the said certificates are valid as on today, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed by 20 petitioners who are said to be permanent residents of Rampachodavaram. Their case is that they belong to Valmiki community which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe community under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950; the petitioners’ ancestor by name Dabba Yegulaiah lived in Tantikonda village, Rajavommangi Mandal, East Godavari district and the petitioners are the legal heirs of the said person who is their first ancestor; the first petitioner’s great grandfather’s brother’s name is Dabba Swamy and his name and his wife’s names were registered in the birth register of 1942 in which their caste was mentioned as “Valmikulu”; petitioners submitted revenue records which are prior to 1950 to the third respondent to prove their caste; first petitioner and other petitioners got selected for various Government jobs under ST quota and in the year 2002 the then Mandal Revenue Officer issued permanent Valmiki (ST) caste certificates to the petitioners 1 to 3 after enquiry and the petitioners 5, 7 and 11 were also issued the said certificates in 1998, 1999 and 2011 and all the other petitioners have got valid community certificates except the minor petitioners; some of the relatives of the petitioners whose surname is “Dubba” also obtained Scheduled Tribe community certificates and in the year 2008 the then Tahsildar issued First Generation in Education Candidate Certificate dated 27.02.2008, wherein he had categorically admitted that the first petitioner and his family members belong to Valmiki (Scheduled Tribe) community; due to digitalization of records, petitioners need digitalized community certificates, but the third respondent is not digitalizing the permanent community certificates of the petitioners through Meeseva, which is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the orders passed by this Court in WP No.17560 of 2015, dated 18.06.2015, W.P.No.958 of 2017, dated 01.11.2018 and W.P.No.2925 of 2021 dated 08.02.2021. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the orders passed by this Court in WP No.17560 of 2015, dated 18.06.2015, W.P.No.958 of 2017, dated 01.11.2018 and W.P.No.2925 of 2021 dated 08.02.2021. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent Tahsildar stating, inter alia, that the caste certificate produced by the eighth petitioner namely Smt. Dabba Emina Swetha, D/o Augusteen Wylliamsis was examined and the details of the said certificate are not found in the register which is being maintained for issuance of caste certificates since 2011; the serial number mentioned in the said certificate is not tallying with the register and the eighth petitioner has produced fake and fabricated certificate before this Court and sought digitalization of the same; so far as writ petitioners 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are concerned, they never obtained caste certificates till now; the copy of birth register of the year 1942 produced by the petitioner is suspicious and the same could not be traced in the office; the office seal and stamp of Tahsildar is not matching with the seal used during 2010 and 2011; the birth extract of Thantikonda village for the year 1939 show the name of Dabba Sundara Rao and Pentamma, wherein their caste is mentioned as “Mala” and the birth extract of Balijapadu village of Rajavommangi Mandal for the year 1954, where the surname Dabba is found is described as ‘Mala’ community; in view of the complaints given by other Scheduled Tribe community people, the caste certificates of the relatives whose surname is “Dabba” are pending before the District Level Scrutiny Committee and yet to be finalized; as the petitioners in WP No.2925 of 2021 have produced fake and fabricated certificates, a review petition has been filed against the orders in WP No.2925 of 2021 and the order passed in the said Writ Petition was reviewed; as the claims of the petitioners are doubtful, they have to be referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee as per the AP Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes – Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997. 5. Reply affidavit is filed by the first petitioner on behalf of all the petitioners stating, inter alia, that the counter affidavit is contrary to the endorsement given on 10.06.2017 rejecting the request for digitalization of caste certificates. 6. 5. Reply affidavit is filed by the first petitioner on behalf of all the petitioners stating, inter alia, that the counter affidavit is contrary to the endorsement given on 10.06.2017 rejecting the request for digitalization of caste certificates. 6. The relief that is sought in the Writ Petition is digitalization of permanent community certificates of the petitioners issued by the Tahsildar. Digitalization of caste certificates will be done only if there is one genuine certificate which is issued in their favour. Admittedly, the applications filed by the petitioners 1 and 10 for issuance of integrated caste certificate through applications dated 03.05.2017 were rejected through endorsements dated 10.06.2017. The copies of those two endorsements which were issued to the petitioners 1 and 10 are filed by the writ petitioners along with reply affidavit. The said endorsements dated 10.06.2017 read as follows. “Your application dated 03.05.02017 for integrated certificate was examined. After enquiry your request is not considered due to the following reasons and hence rejected. Reasons: The applicant not produced relevant documents before 1956 birth and death school records and land documents etc.” 7. The said endorsement rejecting to issue integrated certificates to the petitioners 1 and 10 was on 10.06.2017, but the same is not mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. No where it is stated that the said endorsement is challenged by them. In view of the said endorsement, petitioners 1 and 10 are not entitled for digitalization of non-existing certificates. Hence, insofar as the petitioners 1 and 10 is concerned, a direction to digitalize the caste certificates which were issued to them cannot be issued. 8. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that the caste certificate said to be issued to the eighth petitioner namely Smt. Dabba Emina Swetha, D/o Augusteen Wylliamsis is a fabricated one and that the serial number mentioned in the said caste certificate is not tallying with the register that was maintained in the office for the year 2011 and hence unless the said issue is decided with regard to caste of the eighth petitioner a direction to digitalize the said certificate cannot be issued. 9. 9. Insofar as petitioners 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are concerned, it is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that they never obtained caste certificates till now and the said statement is not denied in the reply affidavit filed by the writ petitioners and those petitioners are aged about 11 years, 9 years, 5 years, 2 years, 6 years, 7 years, 4 years, 14 years and 11 years respectively. As these petitioners never obtained caste certificates till now, digitalization cannot be ordered. 10. It is also specifically stated in the counter that the birth register of the year 1942 which is produced by the petitioners is suspicious and could not be traced in the office and the office seal and stamp of the Tahsildar is not tallying with the seal that was used in 2010 and 2011 and that the enquiry is pending before the District Level Scrutiny Committee with regard to some people with the same Surname and who were issued ST Caste certificates. 11. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.17560 of 2015 was disposed of basing on the orders in W.P.No.23764 of 2013 dated 21.08.2013. As seen from the order in W.P.No.23764 of 2013, it is the admitted case of the respondents therein that caste certificate is in force. Hence, a direction was issued to issue digital community certificate. Writ Petition No.17560 of 2015 was disposed of observing thus. “Since the Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, as mentioned above, is, admittedly, still in force, the respondents, shall within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, furnish the petitioner a digital copy of the said certificate. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating action under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST 7 BCs) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 for cancellation of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, if they are of the view that the said caste certificate is false.” 12. As seen from the said order, admittedly, the certificate produced by the petitioner therein was in force, but in the present case, that is not the case of the respondents. As seen from the said order, admittedly, the certificate produced by the petitioner therein was in force, but in the present case, that is not the case of the respondents. Writ Petition No.958 of 2017 was disposed of in terms of the order in W.P.No.17560 of 2015 dated 18.06.2015 at the admission stage. It is not stated in the said order as to whether it is the admitted case of the respondents therein that the caste certificates issued to those petitioners are still in force. The order in the earlier case was extracted and Writ Petition was disposed of. The order in W.P.No.958 of 2017 reads as follows. “Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17560 of 2015 dated 18.6.2015 and a request is made to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the said order. Copy of the said order is also placed on record. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “Since the Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, as mentioned above, is, admittedly, still in force, the respondents shall within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, furnish the petitioner a digital copy of the said certificate. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating action under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 for cancellation of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, if they are of the view that the said caste certificate is false”. 2. Following the above referred order and for the reasons recorded herein, this writ petition is disposed in terms thereof. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 13. W.P.No.2925 of 2021 was also disposed of thus. “Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17560 of 2015 dated 18.6.2015 and a request is made to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the said order. “Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17560 of 2015 dated 18.6.2015 and a request is made to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the said order. Copy of the said order is also placed on record. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “Since the Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, as mentioned above, is, admittedly, still in force, the respondents shall within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, furnish the petitioner a digital copy of the said certificate. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating action under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 for cancellation of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, if they are of the view that the said caste certificate is false”. 2. Following the above referred order and for the reasons recorded herein, this writ petition is disposed in terms thereof. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 14. A review petition has been filed against the order in WP No.2925 of 2021 and in the said review petition the following order was passed on 06.07.2021. “After the writ petition was disposed of the petitioners had approached the review petitioner for issuance of digital certificates. The review petitioner has now approached this Court on the ground that no caste certificates had been issued to the writ petitioner Nos.4 and 11 and the certificates produced by them were fake. The review petitioner under the apprehension that non issue of digital certificates on the basis of such fake certificates could still be treated as a violation of the orders of this Court has approached this court by way of this review petition. it is submitted by the review petitioner, that this Court had only granted leave to cancel an existing certificate under Section 5 and that there is no discretion to the review petitioner to reject the applications of the petitioners even if it is found that the certificates are fake and fabricated. it is submitted by the review petitioner, that this Court had only granted leave to cancel an existing certificate under Section 5 and that there is no discretion to the review petitioner to reject the applications of the petitioners even if it is found that the certificates are fake and fabricated. On this basis, the present review petition is filed to review the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.2925 of 2021 dated 08.02.2021 with a consequential direction to the authorities to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the review petitioner and Sri K. Neelakanteshwara Rao learned counsel for the writ petitioners. The direction of this Court was to issue digital certificates of genuine caste certificates issued earlier. If these caste certificates are found to be fake certificates and that such certificates had never been issued by the office of the review petitioner, there would be no difficulty for the review petitioner in conducting an enquiry to ascertain whether the caste certificates have, in fact, been issued by the appropriate authority or not, after due notice to the said petitioners whose certificates are found to be fake. The review petitioner can always refuse to issue digital certificates in the event of the enquiry revealing that the certificates were fake. In the circumstances, there is no need to review the present order, as it is always open for the review petitioner to conduct an enquiry either on the ground that the caste certificates itself are fake or on the ground that the caste certificates have been obtained wrongly by the petitioners and refuse issue of digital certificates of such fake certificates.” 15. And as seen from the said order which was reviewed, it is clarified that the Tahsildar can conduct an enquiry either on the ground that the caste certificates are fake or on the ground that the caste certificates have been obtained wrongly and refuse to issue digital certificates to such fake certificates. 16. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in J. Chitra v. District Collector and Chairman, State level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu and others (Civil Appeal No.5160 of 2010, dated 02.09.2021), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows. “5. 16. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in J. Chitra v. District Collector and Chairman, State level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu and others (Civil Appeal No.5160 of 2010, dated 02.09.2021), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows. “5. Realizing the pernicious practice of false caste certificates being utilized for the purpose of securing admission to educational institutions and public employment depriving genuine candidates of the benefits of reservation, this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) issued the following directions: “1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub- Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non- gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub- castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be “not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post.” 6. In Dayaram (supra), this Court was of the view that the Scrutiny Committee is an administrative body which verifies the facts and investigates into claims of caste status. The orders of the Scrutiny Committee are open to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further held by this Court that permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals and further appeals would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils which this Court wanted to eradicate. It was observed that the entire scheme in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) will only continue till the legislature concerned makes an appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status as SC/ST. It was made clear that verification of caste certificates issued without prior inquiry would be verified by the Scrutiny Committees. It was observed that the entire scheme in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) will only continue till the legislature concerned makes an appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status as SC/ST. It was made clear that verification of caste certificates issued without prior inquiry would be verified by the Scrutiny Committees. Such of those caste certificates which were issued after due and proper inquiry need not to be verified by the Scrutiny Committees. 7. District Vigilance Committees for verification of community certificates issued to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes were reconstituted on 06.07.2005 pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). G.O. 108 dated 12.09.2007 contains guidelines issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the functioning of the District and State Level Vigilance Committees. The guidelines issued by the Government in G.O. 108 of 12.09.2007 are as follows: 1. In cases which were remitted to the three-member District Level Vigilance Committee by the State Level Scrutiny Committee as per the Court directions before 12.09.2007, the decision of the District Vigilance Committee reconstituted by G.O. 111 dated 06.07.2005 regarding the genuineness of community certificate of Scheduled Tribes is final. 2. In case of community certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar/Tahsildar has been found to be not genuine by the three-member District Vigilance Committee and an individual has filed an Appeal to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the individual shall be directed to approach the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. 3. If appeals are filed against orders passed by the two-member District Level Vigilance Committee to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and were not remitted back to the reconstituted three-member Scrutiny Committee by the Government, in view of pendency of Writ Petitions before the Court, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall conduct an inquiry. 8. In the instant case, an inquiry was conducted by the District Level Vigilance Committee which has upheld the community certificate in favour of the Appellant. The decision of the District Level Vigilance Committee in the year 1999 has not been challenged in any forum. The recognition of the community certificate issued in favour of the Appellant by the District Vigilance Committee having become final, the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to reopen the matter and remand for fresh consideration by the District Level Vigilance Committee. The recognition of the community certificate issued in favour of the Appellant by the District Vigilance Committee having become final, the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to reopen the matter and remand for fresh consideration by the District Level Vigilance Committee. The guidelines issued by G.O.108 dated 12.09.2007 do not permit the State Level Scrutiny Committee to reopen cases which have become final. The purpose of verification of caste certificates by Scrutiny Committees is to avoid false and bogus claims. Repeated inquiries for verification of caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Reopening of inquiry into caste certificates can be only in case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were issued without proper inquiry. 9. The District Level Vigilance Committee cancelled the community certificate issued in favour of the Appellant after conducting an inquiry and coming to a conclusion that she belongs to Kailolan community and not to Valluvan community which is a Scheduled Caste. In view of the conclusion that the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not have the power to reopen the matter relating to the caste certificate that was approved by the District Vigilance Committee in the year 1999 without any Appeal filed against that order, it is not necessary for us to deal with the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant relating to the correctness of the findings recorded by the District Vigilance Committee in the year 09.04.2008. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 09.04.2008 is set aside and the Appeal is allowed.” 17. As seen from the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the State Level Scrutiny Committee do not have jurisdiction to reopen the matter and remand the same for fresh consideration by the District Level Vigilance Committee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the purpose of verification of caste certificates by Scrutiny Committees is to avoid false and bogus claims and that repeated inquiries for verification of caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that the reopening of inquiry into caste certificates can be only in case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were issued without proper inquiry. Basing on the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that repeated enquiry for verification is not warranted, but however the said judgment also clarifies that enquiry can be reopened in cases where there is allegation of fraud and the caste certificates are issued without proper enquiry. Even in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.2925 of 2021, which was reviewed on 06.07.2021, it was left open to the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry into the caste certificate and refuse to issue digital certificate if it is found that the said certificate which is produced is a fake one. 18. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no direction to digitalize the caste certificates can be issued insofar as petitioners 1 and 10 are concerned, as the integrated caste certificates were rejected to both of them. Similarly, no direction can be issued in favour of petitioner No.8 as the details of the caste certificate produced by her are not found in the register which is being maintained for issuance of caste certificates since 2011 and the serial number mentioned in the said certificate is not tallying with the register. The case of petitioner No.8 may be considered after the enquiry is completed. Similarly, a direction as sought for by the petitioners 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 cannot be issued, as they never obtained caste certificates. 19. However, insofar as petitioners 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11 are concerned, as it is stated that they obtained permanent caste certificates, the appropriate authority is directed to verify the genuineness of the permanent caste certificates produced by them and issue digitalized permanent community certificates to them. 20. Insofar as petitioners 4, 6 and 13 are concerned, it is not stated that they obtained permanent caste certificates. If at all these petitioners produce permanent caste certificates, respondents are directed to verify the genuineness of those certificates and issue digitalized permanent community certificates to them. 21. It is also made clear that it is open to the respondents to refer the doubtful claims to the competent authority. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.