IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18104 of 2005 Between: Kongara Mallikarjuna Rao … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora Counsel for the respondents: GP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18104 of 2005 ORDER:- In this writ petition, the dispute pertains to the social status of the petitioner, who is presently working as a compounder in Medical and Health Department. The petitioner was given employment by treating his social status as “Konda Reddy”. The petitioner went through several rounds of litigation, reference to which is not necessary in the view this Court is proposing to take in the matter. Though the proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of his community certificate were initiated prior to coming into force of the A.P. (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”), as the proceedings were pending at the commencement of the said Act, the dispute was referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, “the Committee”). Though during the enquiry the petitioner did not file documentary evidence, in response to the show cause notice, he filed his written explanation on 06.10.1998 before the Committee along with certain documents. One of the documents includes judgment in Writ Petition No.12060 of 1990, dated 28.03.1997. The Committee, however, without dealing with the said judgment, appears to have submitted its report to respondent No.2, who, by his order dated 15.11.1999, declared that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy community. The said order received affirmation from respondent No.1. Questioning these two orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that both respondent Nos.2 and 1 made a perfunctory approach in ignoring the material filed by the petitioner in general and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.12060 of 1990 in particular. The learned counsel submitted that in the aforementioned judgment, the Division Bench categorically declared that the petitioner along with other family members belongs to Konda Reddy community. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare while opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the abovementioned order of the Division Bench was passed in the context of a dispute arising under the land transfer regulation and that therefore it has no relevance. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the Division Bench judgment hereinbelow. “Heard both sides. Needless to say that the caste of a person comes by the caste of his father and not by the caste of his mother, unless it is otherwise stated n the statute. In the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioners’ father was declared as Tribal viz., “Konda Reddy”. Subsequently to say as their mother belongs to a non-tribal, the petitioners do not belong to tribal caste, is incorrect and contrary to statute. Hence, the order under challenge is quashed. The writ petition is allowed holding that the petitioners belong to tribal caste and are entitled to all the reliefs. No costs.” (Emphasis added) A perusal of the order passed by the District Collector, which refers to the Committee’s report, does not show that either the Committee or respondent No.2 has adverted to the above referred judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.12060 of 1990. When the declaration made by this Court, which is a Court of record, regarding the social status of the petitioner was placed before the Committee and respondent No.2, it is incumbent upon them to consider the said declaration, albeit made in a different context. Failure to advert to the said judgment and giving a finding thereon constitutes a serious error on the part of the hierarchical authorities. The orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are therefore quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.2 to initiate fresh proceedings under the provisions of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.23044 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.02.2010 ES