IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5472 of 2000 Between: K.L.Sulochanamma … Petitioner And The District Collector, Cuddapah District and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Krishna Devan Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1 to R.4. Sri V.Venugopala Rao for R.5 This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 10-3-2000 issued by the District Collector, Cuddapah District, respondent No.1 herein, in reference No.C5/2681/97 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Heard Sri Krishna Devan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5. On 4-8-1996 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajipet Mandal, Cuddapah District, respondent No.4 herein, issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioner is the daughter of Sri K.Bala Subba Reddy and resident of Thavvaripally village, Kajipet Mandal, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh. She applied for the post of Extra Departmental (Postal) Agent i.e., Branch Post Master, of Thavvaripally village. Respondent No.5 also applied for the said post, but was unsuccessful. She initially approached the Joint Collector, Cuddapah District, respondent No.2 herein, complaining that the petitioner is not a resident of Thavvaripally village and that on the basis of a false Nativity Certificate issued by respondent No.4 she secured appointment as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. On the said representation being forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddapah, respondent No.3 herein, he passed order dated 15-4-1997 by holding that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Thavvaripally village. Thereupon, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 by filing the purported appeal dated 10-5-1997. Respondent No.1, in turn, referred the issue to the District Level Scrutiny Committee under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes & Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Rules, 1997 (for short “the Rules”) for enquiry and to send its findings to him. Purporting to rely upon the findings of the said Committee, respondent No.1 issued show-cause notice on 6-7-1999 to the petitioner directing her to show cause as to why the bogus Nativity Certificate obtained by her should not be cancelled and action should not be taken against her under sub-Sections (1) (2) and (3) of Section 11 and sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes & Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act,1993 (for short “the Act”) read with the Rules. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed her explanation, wherein she, inter alia, stated that she belongs to O.C. category; that Section 5(1) of the Act does not empower the District Collector to deal with the Nativity Certificates; that under the said provision if a false community certificate is obtained by a person claiming that he belongs to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes, the District Collector has the power and jurisdiction to cancel the same; and that the show cause notice is without authority and jurisdiction. Though the petitioner gave a detailed reply on merits, in the view I am taking, it is not necessary to refer to those details. After receipt of the reply from the petitioner and considering the same, respondent No.1 passed order on 10-3-2000 wherein he held that the petitioner is guilty of obtaining bogus Nativity Certificate fraudulently from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajipet Mandal; declared the said certificate as bogus and cancelled the same. He also directed that the concerned authority shall initiate legal action against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 10, 11(1)(2) and (3) and 12(1) of the Act, apart from initiating consequential action under Rule 9(7) of the Rules. This order is questioned in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri Krishna Devan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that admittedly the petitioner belongs to O.C. category and that she has not obtained any Community Certificate or the Nativity Certificate claiming as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class category; and that, therefore, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice in the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass the impugned order. Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5, however, stated that since the District Collector being the superior authority to the Mandal Revenue Officer, who issued the false Nativity Certificate to the petitioner, he has the power to cancel the said Certificate issued by his subordinate officer. I have carefully considered the submissions of the respective counsel and perused the record. In order to decide whether respondent No.1 had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice and pass the impugned order, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The long title of the Act shows that the same was made to consolidate the issue of Community Certificates relating to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is also stated in the introductory part of the Act that several persons have been seeking admissions into educational institutions and securing public employment on the basis of false Community Certificates in the seats/posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes; and that to effectively curb this evil practice, the Act was intended to be made. Under Section 3 of the Act, any person belonging to any of the above mentioned categories viz., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, may apply for issuance of a Community Certificate to claim the benefit of any reservation provided for such categories. Under Section 4 of the Act, the competent authority is empowered to issue Community Certificates. Section 5 of the Act, which is pivotal for this case, reads as under: “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 or 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 a 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”. Under Section 7 of the Act, if any person is aggrieved by an order passed under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 by the competent authority rejecting an application for issuance of a Community Certificate, may file an appeal to the District Collector and the District Collector may, after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard, either confirm or set aside the order and direct the competent authority to issue a Community Certificate. Under sub-Section (2) thereof, an appeal is provided to the Government against the order passed under Section 5 by the District Collector cancelling the Community Certificate. The Rules have been framed in the year 1997 to come into force with effect from 16-5-1997. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to refer to Rules 3, 4, 9,10 and 12. Rule 3 prescribes Form-III (mentioning of Form-II in the Rule is an obvious mistake) appended to the Rules as the form for issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates. Under Rule 4, every applicant/parent/guardian who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class, desirous of declaring his social status as that of a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or a Backward Class, shall submit an application in the prescribed Form I/II to the competent authority. Under Rule 9, where the District Collector receives a written complaint from any person or has otherwise reason to believe that a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class has obtained a false Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate to the effect that either himself/herself or his/her children belong to such a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Backward Class, he shall refer the case to the Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for enquiry into such cases and send its findings to the District Collector. After receiving the report, the District Collector shall then decide whether the certificate holder is genuine or fraudulent and in case of the certificate holder having obtained a Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate fraudulently, the District Collector shall pass an order canceling the said certificate. Under Rule 10, an appeal shall lie to the District Collector within thirty days from the date of receipt of rejection orders on the application for Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates passed by the Competent Authority. Under Rule 12, the Government either suo motu, or on an application filed by any person aggrieved by the orders issued by the competent authority, may examine the correctness or otherwise of such an order. From the above-mentioned provisions of the Act and the Rules, it is clearly evident that the jurisdiction of the hierarchal authorities is available for being exercised in cases falling under the provisions of the Act. That the Act is exclusively applicable in respect of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates issued in favour of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class persons and the word ‘Nativity’ mentioned under Rule 3 shall relate to the nativity of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class candidates is clearly evident from the language of Form-III in which the said certificate is issued. A perusal of the said Form shows that it contains the heading ‘Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate’ and its contents leave one in no doubt that the certificate relating to all the three aspects viz., Community, Nativity and Date of Birth, is in respect of a person who belongs to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class community. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has not obtained any certificate in Form-III to the effect that she belongs to any of the aforesaid three communities and that she is a native of Thavvaripally village. The copy of the Nativity Certificate filed by the petitioner reads as under: “ This is to certify that Kataiahgari Lakshmi Sulochanamma, daughter of Sri K.Bala Subba Reddy, Resident Thavvaripalli village, Khajipet Mandal, Cuddapah District in Andhra Pradesh” In the impugned order of respondent No.1 it is clearly mentioned as under: “The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khajipet after due enquiry in Ref.D.68/98, dated 18-11-96 reported that Smt.K.L.Sulochanamma is a native of Thavvaripalli village and that the nativity certificate issued to her is a genuine one. Then the matter was referred to the respondent-2 for specific remarks. He addressed the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuddapah who informed him that, inter alia, nativity status is not a precondition for selection, but the candidate selected should take up residence before appointment in that village and that as per records, the appellant is a native of Thavvaripalli. On the basis of the said report, the respondent-2 vide his report L.Dis.2157/96, dated 24-11-96 reported that the appellant is a native of Thavvaripalli”. The above-mentioned facts reveal that it is no one’s case that the petitioner obtained a false Community Certificate and secured a job on the basis of such certificate. From the above reproduced part of the impugned order it is further clear that with respect to the Nativity Certificate, even assuming that the same was false, the petitioner has not secured employment on the strength of such certificate. It is sufficient for a person, who applied for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, to satisfy the authority that on his/her selection, he/she will take up residence of the village concerned before an appointment order is issued. In the face of these undisputed facts, it is beyond one’s comprehension as to how respondent No.1 has issued the show-cause notice on the purported appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.3 holding that the petitioner is not a native of Thavvaripally village. In the entire counter-affidavit the respondents proceeded on the premise that the provisions of the Act apply and, hence, respondent No.1 has jurisdiction. Evidently, the District Collector, while exercising his power under Rule 9 issued the show cause notice and passed the final order. He directed that action shall be taken under Sections 10, 11(1), (2) and (3) and 12(1) of the Act. In the process, respondent No.1 failed to understand the limited scope of his jurisdiction under the said Rule, which is confined to an enquiry into obtaining of a false Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate by any person who does not belong to any of the three Communities mentioned therein. The expression “False Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate” is referable to one integrated certificate issued in Form-III in favour of a person who claims to belong to one or the other of the three Communities viz., Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class. There is no warrant to read the three words – Community, Nativity and Date of Birth –disjunctively and apply the provisions of the Act and the Rules to a person who has not obtained a Community Certificate as belonging to any of the above Communities, but merely obtained either Nativity or Date of Birth Certificate or both. In my considered view, respondent No.1 committed a grave error in invoking the provisions of Rule 9 in case of the petitioner to whom the Act and the Rules have no application whatsoever. Further, respondent No.1 also committed a manifest error in giving direction to take action against the petitioner under Sections 10 to 12 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act prescribes penalties for obtaining a Community Certificate by furnishing false information or filing a false statement or by any other fraudulent means. Similarly, Sections 11(1), (2) and (3) and 12 prescribe various consequences for obtaining false Community Certificates. Indeed, one is at a loss to understand how respondent No.1 directed that action should be taken against the petitioner for obtaining an allegedly false Nativity Certificate unconnected with any of the three communities covered by the provisions of the Act. The whole approach of respondent No.1 is wholly perverse and vitiated by total non-application of mind and betrays lack of any comprehension on his part regarding the scope of the provisions of the Act and jurisdiction available for him to initiate action. The impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. For subjecting the petitioner to vexatious litigation, which would have caused her severe mental agony, apart from unnecessary expenditure in fighting the needless litigation, I deem it appropriate to fasten respondent No.1 with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the petitioner within one month from today. Liberty is given to the petitioner to recover the costs in the event of non-payment by respondent No.1, through legal process. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:16-07-2008 MNR