Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 362 (AP)

K. Rahul Chandra v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

2023-02-10

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief: ".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction to call for the records pertaining to notification No. 06/2016, dtd. 17/8/2016 and consequently direct the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) under the Act under ST (General) category in Zone-III being the most meritorious candidate in the said category with all consequential benefits on par with other appointees and to hold selection of less meritorious candidates that the petitioner is ST Category in Zone-III with regard to post Code No.4 i.e Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) under ST (General) category in Zone-III as bad, illegal and unconstitutional (ii) and also hold the action of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in insisting for production of ST (Pardhan) caste corticated from Guntur District, where is is treated as a local candidate and ignoring the ST (Pardhan) Certificate obtained by him from his place of living i.e Adilabad District as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional (iii) and or alternatively direct the Revenue Authorities of Guntur District to issue ST (Pardhan) Caste Certificate to the petitioner, keeping in view the certificate already issued to him in Adilabad District in consultation with Trial Welfare Department, if necessary and pass such other orders." 2. Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Venkata Nagaraju, learned Standing Counsel, APPSC for the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner belong to ST community and obtained certificate as Schedule Tribe (Pardhan). The petitioner studied up to V Class at Adialabad District, from VI Class to X Class at Guntur, Intermediate at Vijayawada and B.Tech at Nagpur. Therefore the petitioner is comes under local of Zone-III and belong to Adilabad District as per Presidential Order. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued notification No. 6 of 2016, dtd. 17/8/2016 to fill up the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in various Engineering Services (General Recruitment). The petitioner applied for the said post under ST quota and obtained highest marks 271.35, out of 450. But the said post was not allotted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has to submit the ST Caste certificate from the State of Andhra Pradesh, ignoring the certificate given by the State of Telangana is highly illegal and arbitrary. But the said post was not allotted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has to submit the ST Caste certificate from the State of Andhra Pradesh, ignoring the certificate given by the State of Telangana is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition. 4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter-affidavit denying the material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended that the Commission conducted examination as per notification and after results, called for verification of Original Certificates, by that time it was noticed that the petitioner studied VI to X Class in Gutur District and hence the petitioner is treated as local to Zone-III. The petitioner has produced the Community Certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities of Macherial District of Telangana State, who is not competent to issue such certificate under Sec. 4 of A.P (SCs, STs and BCs) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, he was not considered as ST. The petitioner made a representation dtd. 11/5/2015 that he will submit Community Certificate from Revenue Authority, Guntur District on or before 16/5/2017, if in case failed to produce the same, he may treat as OC local. So far the petitioner did not submit the Community Certificate from the Revenue Authority, Guntur District and hence the candidature of the petitioner was considered under Open Category, Zone-III. As he did not secure enough marks under OC category, he could not come up for selection due to low merit. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner as he was not produced Caste/Community Certificate from the competent Revenue Authority, State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. In the case of "Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board and Others", 2018(10) SCC 312 . wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "It must also be noted that the power exercised under Article 16(4) by the Parliament but also by the Executive order issued under Article 166 of the Constitution. 6. In the case of "Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board and Others", 2018(10) SCC 312 . wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "It must also be noted that the power exercised under Article 16(4) by the Parliament but also by the Executive order issued under Article 166 of the Constitution. "It will, therefore, be in consonance with the constitutional scheme to understand the enabling provision under Article 16(4) to be available to provide reservation only to the classes or categories of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes enumerated in the Presidential Orders for a particular State/ Union Territory within the geographical area of that State and not beyond". If in the opinion of a State it is necessary to extend the benefit of Reservation to a class/ category of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes beyond those specified in the Lists for that particular State, constitutional discipline would require the State to make its views in the matter prevail with the Central Authority so as to enable an appropriate parliamentary exercise to be made by an amendment of the Lists of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes for that particular State". Unilateral action by the State upon Article 16(4) would invite constitutional anarchy in place and therefore must be held to be impermissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the Pan-India Reservation Rule in delhi and expounded that State cannot unilaterally introduce it. SC/ ST status allotted to a person for quotas in jobs in one State will not be available in other State. 7. Therefore considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/ Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State, which may be totally none est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States, but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States, but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in one State as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". 8. In view of foregoing discussion, this Court opines that the petitioner has to submit proper Community Certificate from the competent Revenue Authority, which the petitioner has filed to do so. Therefore the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner and treating him under Open Category. As per Open Category, the petitioner could not come for zone of consideration, due to low merit. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this Writ Petition and same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.