Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 97 (TS)

T. Ramakrishana, SECBAD v. Govt Of A. P HYD

2025-03-06

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri S. Laxma Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing, Sri Allika Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri K. Aravind Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “...to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.D3-4674/00 dated 16.03.2006 as well as the proceedings in Rc.No.B8 7856/89 dated 26.12.1995 said to have been issued by the 2 nd respondent behind back of the petitioner as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and in violation of the basic principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same with all consequential reliefs and pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s grandfather hails from Bhadrachalam and belongs to “Valmiki Community”. The petitioner’s father secured employment in the railways and was transferred from place to place and finally retired in Khandwa. The petitioner’s father belongs to Scheduled Tribe caste “Valmiki”. The respondent No.2 after due verification issued ST Caste Certificate to the petitioner dated 19.07.1985 and petitioner was appointed as Trains Clerk on 23.04.1988. Before the petitioner was appointed in railways, the petitioner applied to the post of Probationary Officer in Andhra Bank against the reserved S.T category. Thereafter, on the complaint made by the Divisional Secretary, AISCSTREA, Hyderabad, Respondent No.4 issued notice to the petitioner to produce the original Caste Certificate. Subsequently, termination notice dated 01.08.2006 was issued by respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner caste certificate issued by respondent No.3 was cancelled by the Joint Collector vide proceedings dated 26.12.1995 and the same was communicated to the railways vide letter of District Joint Collector dated 16.03.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD :- 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD :- 4. Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is extracted hereunder: “I submit that the W.P.No.16659 of 2006 does not disclose any valid cause of action and the writ petition including the relief sought is misconceived, baseless, and incorrect. The Petitioner is misrepresenting the factual position with regard to his appointment as Train Clerk on 23-04-1988 against the post reserved to the schedule tribe. The Petitioner was further promoted as Goods Guard in the year 1992 and as Passenger Guard in the year 1998 and continuing as such under the reserved category. The caste certificate as schedule tribe was subject matter of investigation under the provisions of A.P (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates' Act, 1993. The District Collector, Khammam vide Proceeding R.C.No.88/7856/89 dtd 26-12-1995 has cancelled the caste certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Badrachalam vide R.is.No.C/577/85 dtd. 19-07-1985 with due opportunity to the petitioner and published the same in the District Gazette on 02-03-2000. The Petitioner has not availed the opportunity to adduce evidence and substantiate the claim and file an appeal within the stipulated time as provided under the Act. The said cancellation having become final and appeal having not been filed as provided in Section-7 of Act, the Writ Petition challenging the Notice dated 01-08-2006 is misconceived and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 5. The relevant portion of the Impugned Order dated 16.03.2006 of the 2 nd respondent is extracted hereunder: “The Director, TW, Hyderabad, has reported that Sri Thupakula Ramakrishna, S/o. BT. Ramulu, is an ordinary resident of Ulindikonda of Kurnool District, which is not declared as Agency Tracts, the candidate cannot be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe. Further requested to arrange for cancellation of the community certificate issued to the said individual by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam of Khammam Dist. The detailed enquiry has been conducted and as per procedure the (ST) Valimi Caste Certificate obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam, vide R.Dis.No.C-577/ 85, dt.19.07.85 by Sri T.Rama Krishna, S/ o. BT. Ramulu, has been cancelled vide this office proceedings Rc.No.B8-7856/ 89, dt.26.12.95 (copy enclosed).” 6. The relevant portion of the impugned order in ROC No.B8-7856/ 89 dated 26.12.1995, is extracted hereunder: “5. Ramulu, has been cancelled vide this office proceedings Rc.No.B8-7856/ 89, dt.26.12.95 (copy enclosed).” 6. The relevant portion of the impugned order in ROC No.B8-7856/ 89 dated 26.12.1995, is extracted hereunder: “5. The individual was issued a show cause notice vide this office reference 3 rd cited to submit his explanation within (7) days from the date of receipt of show cause notice for having obtained certificate keeping the officials in darkness and obtained bogus certificate without bringing the facts to the notice of the officers and the show cause notices were sent to his residential address at Kurnool as well as to Bhadrachalam. The notice which was sent by regd. post to the residential address of Kurnool, has returned to this office with the endorsed that no such addressee at Kurnool by the post man and the M.R.O., Bhadrachalam, has also reported in the reference 4 th cited that the individual is not residing at Bhadrachalam and his whereabouts are not known and the show cause notice was published in Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat Office, Police Station, M.P.P. Office, M.R.O’s Office, Village Chawadi and also by beat of tom tom in Bhadrachalam town and no response is received for the show cause notice issued by this office so far. 6. After examining the evidence put forth before me and as per the enquiries made by the Director of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad, it is established that Sri T.Rama Krishna, S/o. B.T. Ramulu, does not belongs to “Valmiki” Tribe of Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. 7. In view of the above facts and exercise of the powers conferred by the Govt. vide G.O.Ms.No.282 S.W.(J2) Department, dated 19.12.88, I hereby order that “ Valmiki” caste certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam, vide R.Dis.No.S-577/ 85, dt. 19.7.85, is hereby cancelled.” 7. 7. In view of the above facts and exercise of the powers conferred by the Govt. vide G.O.Ms.No.282 S.W.(J2) Department, dated 19.12.88, I hereby order that “ Valmiki” caste certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam, vide R.Dis.No.S-577/ 85, dt. 19.7.85, is hereby cancelled.” 7. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per Section 5 of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Castes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, it is the District Collector, who is the competent authority to cancel the Caste Certificate, but in the present case, the Joint Collector had cancelled the Caste Certificate without jurisdiction, by passing an ex-parte impugned order dated 26.12.1995 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth petitioner’s case, and therefore the consequential order dated 16.03.2006 issued by the 2 nd respondent is illegal and hence both the impugned orders of the 2 nd respondent dated 26.12.1995 and 16.03.2006 need to be set aside. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “ Rampal vs. State of Haryana and others” , reported in (2009) 9 SCC 187 in particular paragraph Nos.5 and 6 very clearly observed that it is admitted position that before cancellation of the caste certificate of the appellant therein, the authorities ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant therein and rejecting the same is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said Apex Court Judgment are extracted hereunder:- “5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other materials on record. In our view, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order should also be set aside on a very short point. It is an admitted position that before the cancellation of the caste certificate of the appellant, the authorities ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to contend that the certificate issued to him was a Scheduled Caste Certificate” and, therefore, it cannot be cancelled. 6. It is an admitted position that before the cancellation of the caste certificate of the appellant, the authorities ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to contend that the certificate issued to him was a Scheduled Caste Certificate” and, therefore, it cannot be cancelled. 6. In view of the fact that the principles of natural justice were admittedly violated in this case, the impugned order must be set aside and the Tahsildar concerned must be directed to decide the dispute regarding the caste certificate of the appellant after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order, preferably within three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to him.” 9. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 in the present W.P.No.16659 of 2006 in particular paragraph No.3 contends that the petitioner is not entitled for relief as prayed for in the present W.P.No.16659 of 2006. 10. A bare perusal of the impugned order in Rc.No.B8- 7856/89 dated 26.12.1995, in particular paragraph No.5, clearly indicates that the order impugned had been passed without even receiving the response of the petitioner to the said show cause notice dated 28.09.1990, from the petitioner and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the order impugned cancelling the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner dated 26.12.1995 passed by the 2 nd respondent, as borne on record, clearly indicates that the same is an ex-parte order, passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 9 SCC 187 in “Rampal Vs. State of Haryana and Others”. It is also borne on record that the authority, who passed the order is not a competent authority as indicated in Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, which is extracted hereunder:- “ 5. State of Haryana and Others”. It is also borne on record that the authority, who passed the order is not a competent authority as indicated in Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, which is extracted hereunder:- “ 5. Cancellation of the false Community Certificate: (1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes has obtained a false Community Certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belongs to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, the District Collector may either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person, call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if he is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall, by notification, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making representation: Provided that where an enquiry into the genuineness of a community certificate issued prior to the commencement of this Act has commenced and is pending at such commencement, the record thereof shall be transferred by the concerned authority to the District Collector and he shall continue the enquiry and conclude the same under this sub-section. (2) The powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Government. 11. The interim prayer in the present W.P.No.16659 of 2006 as sought for by the petitioner is extracted hereunder: “It is also just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to Suspend the impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.D3-4674/00 dated 16.3.2006 as well as the Proceedings in Rc.No.B8/7856/89 dated 26.12.1995 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The interim order passed by this Court on 09.08.2006 in favour of the petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.20859 of 2006 suspending the operation of the impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.D3-4674/ 00 dated 16.3.2006 as well as the Proceedings in Rc.No.B8/ 7856/ 89 dated 26.12.1995 pending disposal of the above writ petition, is in force as on date. 12. 12. This Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in W.P.No.16659 of 2006, since the impugned order vide R.C.No.D3-4674/ 00 dated 16.03.2006 of the respondent No.2 is passed only on the basis of the proceedings vide Rc.No.B8- 7856/ 1989 dated 26.12.1995 of the Joint Collector, Khammam which is illegal and is passed by the 2 nd respondent, without jurisdiction as per Section 5 of the Telangana Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 13. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a). The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b). The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. c). The view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 9 SCC 187 in “ Rampal vs. State of Haryana and others” (referred to and extracted above). d). The fact as borne on record that the impugned proceedings of the 2 nd respondent vide Rc.No.B8-7856/ 1989 dated 26.12.1995 of the Joint Collector, Khammam is admittedly not only without Jurisdiction but also in clear violation of principles of natural justice. e). The fact as borne on record that the impugned Proceedings dated 16.03.2006 of the 2 nd respondent is purely on the basis of the earlier ex parte impugned proceedings passed by the 2 nd respondent dated 26.12.1995, and the same had been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice, The writ petition is allowed and the order impugned vide proceedings in Rc.No.D3-4674/ 00 dated 16.03.2006 issued by the 2 nd respondent as well as the proceedings in Rc.No.B8 7856/ 89 dated 26.12.1995 issued by the 2 nd respondent behind the back of the petitioner are set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.