IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13126 of 2001 Between: K. Sai Radha Madhavi D/o K. Krishna Murthy R/o Chinaganjam Village, Chinaganjam Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. Social Welfare Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinaganjam, Prakasam District. 3 Mandal Development Officer, Chinaganjam, Prakasam District. 4 State Election Commission, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ order or order more especially one in the nature of Certiorari call for records pertaining to G.O.No.20 dated 21-7-1997 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Backward Classes Welfare (A-1) Department by the ﬁrst Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of G.O.Ms.No.1793 Education dated 23-9-1970 and consequentially declare that the modiﬁcation of G.O.Ms.No.1793/Edn. dated 23-9- 1970 excluding the petitioner from claiming the reservation is within the purview of Constitution and the 1st Respondent shall issue permanent caste certiﬁcate under Group D reservation category to the petitioner and consequentially direct the 3rd Respondent Mandal Development Oﬃcer, to receive the nomination of petitioner for Mandal Praja Parishat Territoral Constituency (M.P.T.C) election to be received on 29-6- 2001 or on any other day under Group D reservation category basing on the caste certiﬁcate issued by 2nd Respondent Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chinaganjam, Prakasam District dated 1-7-1985 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13126 of 2001 ORDER: In this writ petition G.O.Ms.No.20, Backward Classes Welfare (A1) Department, dated 21.07.1997, is challenged being ultra vires and violative of G.O.Ms.No.1793, Education Department, dated 23.09.1970, whereby and whereunder the Government of Andhra Pradesh provided concessions in regard to reservations in professional Courses, Services etc., for socially and educationally backward classes as enumerated thereunder. The petitioner in this case claims that she belongs to ‘Tammali’ caste, which according to her is listed as Backward Class – D (BC-D) as per G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970. The petitioner intends to contest in the Mandal Praja Parishat Territorial Constituency (MPTC) elections. She claimed reservation and in that connection applied for caste/community certiﬁcate as belonging to BC-D, which was refused relying on G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 21.07.1997. Therefore, she ﬁled the instant writ petition. Impugned G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 21.07.1997 was issued to modify Serial No.29 of Group-D listed backward classes under G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970, to the eﬀect that ‘Tammali’ caste conﬁned to ﬁve Districts – Adilabad, Karimnagar, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda and Nizamabad of Telangana region and not to other parts of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner in this writ petition is from Prakasam District and therefore she was not given caste certiﬁcate as BC-D. It is mainly contended that G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970 was passed based on recommendations of a commission which conducted a detailed enquiry and that without any such enquiry the Government cannot issue impugned G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 21.07.1997 notifying ‘Tammali’ caste only in ﬁve districts mentioned above as BC-D and not treat ‘Tammali’ caste in other districts of Andhra Pradesh as BC-D. The subject matter of this writ petition was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.12474 of 1998 and batch, dated 22.10.2008, wherein while opposing the contentions of the petitioners therein the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare while making reference to the report dated 25.03.1977 of Anantharaman Commission, stated that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 21.07.1997 was issued based on recommendations modifying G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970 in which ‘Tammali’ was recognized as BC-D for entire Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when initially ‘Tammali’ caste was included in G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970 as BC-D for entire Andhra Pradesh based on recommendations, as per Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India (CoI) it is arbitrary to restrict the beneﬁt to those Tammalis residing in ﬁve districts only. The submission, however, cannot be accepted. It is well settled that it is prerogative to identify socially and educationally backward classes for the purpose of conferring beneﬁts as per Articles 15(4) and 16(4) CoI. While doing so, it is always open to the Government to rely on information of diﬀerent sources. As noticed supra, the commission itself submitted report on 25.03.1977 recommending to conﬁne the beneﬁt of Tammalis in ﬁve districts only i.e., Adilabad, Karimnagar, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda and Nizamabad of Telangana region. This matter, therefore, is not justiciable. It is well settled that when the discrimination is alleged seeking invalidation of an executive action and such discrimination is based on a complaint of under- inclusion the Court of judicial review cannot be interfered because it is the executive discretion that was exercised while not including a class of persons for the purpose of conferring beneﬁts. Of course it is altogether diﬀerent when the discrimination is based on over-inclusion in which event though the Court of judicial review is competent to quash such over-inclusion, it cannot rewrite the executive policy. In G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970 Tammalis in entire Andhra Pradesh were recognized as BC- D but subsequently based on recommendation of commission’s report dated 25.03.1977 the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 21.07.1997 conﬁning said beneﬁt only to ﬁve districts named above. Therefore, no interference is called for. The matter can also be best examined from yet another angle. As held by the Supreme Court in Action Committee v Union of India[1], when a particular community is recognized in scheduled caste (SC) or scheduled tribe (ST) with reference to one State, the same cannot be treated as SC or ST in respect of another State. The same principle applies even with regard to backward classes. A particular community may be identiﬁed as backward class with reference to a region or a group of districts having regard to the geographical habitat of such community, but the same community of people living in other districts may not get the beneﬁt of such reservation. This is constitutionally valid and no exception can be taken to this. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 12.11.2008 vs To 1 The Secretary, Govt. of A.P. Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinaganjam, Prakasam District. 3 Mandal Development Officer, Chinaganjam, Prakasam District. 4 State Election Commission, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CCs to G.P For Revenue, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SRAVAN} [1] (1994) 5 SCC 244