THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.16706 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner joined as a Lecturer in Botany Department of the Osmania University on 30.10.1989 against an unreserved vacancy. Selections to the post of Reader in that Department were made in the year 1997. One of the vacancies was earmarked for BC-D category. The petitioner put forward her claim against the reserved vacancy, on the strength of a caste certificate said to have been issued to her on 24.08.1987 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad. On receiving complaints that the social status claimed by the petitioner is not genuine, the District Collector, Hyderabad, 2nd respondent herein issued a show cause notice, dated 27.07.998, under the provisions of the A.P. (SCs, STs & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder (for short ‘the Rules’), directing the petitioner to explain as to why the certificate, dated 24.08.1987, said to have been issued to her be not cancelled. The petitioner challenges the Rules as being ultra vires of the provisions of the Act. The principal contention is that the scope of the Act is limited and prospective, whereas the Rules travel beyond the purport of the Act. The respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the verification of the record relating to the caste certificate relied upon by the petitioner disclosed that not even a file was maintained and that the persons with the suffix “pillay” to their names are not recognized even in the State of Tamilnadu as Backward Caste and that they cannot be equated to the ‘Yadavas’ in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents also state that the writ petition is not maintainable against the show cause notice and that the Rules do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Heard Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Elaborate arguments are advanced touching on the legality and vires of the Rules. The principal contention is that though the Act deals with the issuance of Caste Certificates and the matters incidental thereto, the Rules empower the authorities to certify the nativity as well as the date of birth and to that extent, the Rules are ultra vires. This Court is not inclined to accept this contention. The reason is that neither the nativity nor the date of birth of the petitioner is at issue and the proceedings initiated are only for cancellation of a caste certificate. Another contention is that the Act is prospective in operation and does not empower cancellation of the certificates, which were already issued. Here again, this Court is not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner. With the coming into force of the Act, the procedure that was in vogue earlier thereto stood repealed and the validity of the Caste Certificates that were issued earlier, can be dealt with only under the present Act and the Rules made thereunder. The power to cancel a certificate is always incidental to the one to issue it, even going by the principles underlying the General Clauses Act. The petitioner is not able to point out any jurisdictional defect in the show cause notice. The Act and the Rules prescribe a detailed procedure to be followed, before a caste certificate is cancelled. The District Level Scrutiny Committee will undertake an initial exercise and submit a report. The Collector, in turn, would take the report into account and take further steps, after hearing the affected party. The petitioner can certainly put forward her explanation, if not already submitted, and there is no reason to believe that the 2nd respondent would not take the same into account before passing final orders. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the legality and vires of the Rules and directing that the 2nd respondent shall make available a copy of the District Level Scrutiny Committee to the petitioner, in case it has already been received, and take into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner, before final orders are passed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 11.12.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.16706 of 1999 Date: 11.12.2008 JSU