IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11633 of 2009 Between: Sri.P.B.S.S.L.N.Murthy Raju S/o.Late Butchi Raju Kakinada, East Godavari District (Under suspension) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra PRadesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Departmetn AP Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The District Collector,Vizianagaram District Vizianagaram 3 The Scrutiny Committee,rep.byits Chairman (Joint collector) Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram Vizianagaram District 5 The Tahsildar,Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of writ of certiorari call for the records and quash the impugned Form-VI issued in (M) Rc.No.1934/03/C5 dated 22.5.2009 by the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, the 3rd respondent by declaring the proceedings /enquiry under taken by the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.11633 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Form-VI issued in (M) Rc.No.1934/03/C5, dated 22.5.2009 by the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee- the third respondent and declare the same, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was issued a caste certificate in the year 1994 certifying that he belongs to “Kondadora” a Schedule Tribe. The said certificate is valid under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, (Act No.16 of 1993). The petitioner appeared for the screening test for the post of Junior Civil Judge in April,2007 and for written examination in August,2007 and he was selected for the said post on the strength of the said certificate. The petitioner filed an application to the competent authority, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram- respondent No.4 for issuance of a fresh caste certificate in his favour. His application was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram through a Memo Rc.No.2466/99K dated 6.9.1999. Against the said memo, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the District Collector, Vizianagaram- respondent No.2 and he did not receive any notice of hearing date of his appeal. In the meanwhile, writ petition No.27409 of 2008 was filed by a third party before this court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate in the Judicial Services of Andhra Pradesh, as illegal and unconstitutional and the writ petition is pending before this court. In the said writ petition, it was alleged that the petitioner was issued a notice and the District Collector, Vizianagaram passed an order dated 20.03.2007 rejecting his appeal. While so, the District Level Scrutiny Committee, represented by its Chairman (Joint Collector), respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice in Form-VI dated 22.05.2009 wherein the petitioner was directed to attend the enquiry regarding community claim on 5-6-2009 at 11.00a.m. at the Collectorate, Vizianagaram. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notice dated 22.5.2009 in Form No.VI was received by the petitioner on 30.05.2009 and the authorities directed the petitioner to appear on 5.6.2009 before the District Level Scrutiny Committee to furnish all the documentary evidence, as such there is no 15 days clear notice and it is contrary to Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules,1997.( for short ‘the Rules’). The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that since writ petition No 27409 of 2008 is pending before this court wherein the petitioner is one of the respondents, and it relates to appointment of the petitioner as Junior Civil Judge on the strength of his caste certificate, the enquiry undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee is not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that a notice was issued to the petitioner and he appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on 5.6.2009 and submitted proforma information and his statement was recorded and he requested to grant two weeks’ time to submit certain documents and accordingly two weeks time was granted and next day of hearing was fixed on 19.06.2009. On 19.06.2009 again petitioner sought adjournment for submitting certain documents and accordingly two weeks time was granted and the date of hearing was fixed on 3.7.2009. Therefore, at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot contend that the notice issued is contrary to the Rule 8 of the Rules. 5. The point for consideration is whether this court can exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction so as to interdict with the enquiry conducted by the District Level Scrutiny Committee with regard to Caste Certificate of the petitioner which is alleged to have been obtained on false claim stating that he belongs to ‘Kondadora’ community and to this effect a writ petition is pending. It is needless to mention that when statutory authority is constituted and conducting statutory duties as contemplated under the Act, this court cannot prevent the statutory authority from discharging its duties and obligations. The subject matter of this writ petition deals with regard to enquiry undertaken bv the statutory authority under the Act. We cannot prevent the Scrutiny Committee, which was constituted as per the Rules, from discharging its statutory duties. So far as 15 days clear notice is concerned, since the petitioner has participated in the enquiry, his statement was recorded and got the enquiry adjourned twice, now he cannot complain that 15 days clear notice was not given. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 6. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner requests extension of 10 days time as the enquiry is scheduled to be held on 10.07.2009. Accordingly, 10 days time is extended. No costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 09-07-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}