IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12474, 25624 and 25756 of 1998 WRIT PETITION NO : 12474 of 1998: Between: P. Sambasiva Rao, S/o Ramamurthy, Gutupalli, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary Social Welfare Department, Government 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 to issue a Writ order or order more especially one in the Nature of Writ of Certiorari call for records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No. 20 dt:21.7.1997 issued by the Government of A.P., Backward Classes Welfare (A-1) Department and the Third Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of G.O.Ms.No. 1793 education dt:23.9.1970 and consequentially declare that the modiﬁcation of G.O.Ms.No. 1793 Education dt:23.9.70 excluding the petitioner from claiming there servation is within the purview of the constitution and the third respondent shall issue permanent caste certiﬁcate under group D reservation category and for admission into M.D. Course by the 2nd Respondent and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA Counsel for the Respondents: DR.Y.PADMAVATHI WRIT PETITION NO : 25624 of 1998: Between: Ravuri ravi, S/o. Gopalakrishna Murthy, R/o. Bolapally Village, Marutur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Social Welfare Department Rep.by its Secretary, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The Mandal Revenue officer, Marutur Mandal, Prakasam District. .....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 to issue a writ or order more especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for records pertaining to G.O. Ms. No. 20 dated 21-7-1997 issued by the Government of A.P. 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 calaiming the reservation is within the purview of the constitution and the ﬁrst Respondent shall issue permanent case certiﬁcate under Group-D Reservation category to the petitonerand Consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to issue the caste certiﬁcate permanently under Group- D reservation category Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE WRIT PETITION NO : 25756 of 1998: Between: Ch. Koteswara Rao S/o Sambasiva Rao R/o Alavalapadu (V), J. Panguluru (M), Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. Social Welfare Department, Rep. by its Secretary Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad 2 Mandal Revenue Officer J. Panguluru (M), Prakasam Dist. 3 Mandal Educational Officer Dornala, Prakasam Dist. .....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 to issue a Writ or order more especially one in the Nature of writ of certiorari call for records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.20 dt: 21-7-1997 issued by the Govt. of A.P., Backward Classes Welfare (A-1) Dept., by the 1st respondnet as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of G.O.Ms.No.1793/Education dt: 23-9-1970 and conseuqentially declare that the modiﬁcation of G.O.Ms.No.1793/Edn. dt: 23-9-70 excluding the petitioner from claiming the reservation is within the preview of constitution and the 1st Respondent shall issue permanent caste certiﬁcate under Group-D reservation category to the petitioner and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of B.Ed.Teacher basing on the original caste certificate under Group-D reservation category Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following Common Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.12474, 25624 and 25756 of 1998 COMMON ORDER: In all these writ petitions 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 petitioners in these cases claimed to belong to Tammali caste, which according to them is listed as backward class – D (BC-D) under G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970. One of the petitioners applied for professional course - M.D. Course in Ayurveda and one completed B.Ed., course and was selected as teacher. They 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, they filed these writ petitions. 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 petitioners in these writ petitions are from Prakasam District and therefore they were not given caste certiﬁcates 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. Similar counter-aﬃdavits are ﬁled opposing the writ petitions. While making reference to the report dated 25.03.1977 of Anantharaman Commission, it is 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. Relevant portion in the counter-aﬃdavits reads as under. It is submitted that on a detailed examination and the evidence on record, the Commission, by its Report dated 25-03-1977, recommended to Government as hereunder: “(1) We hold that the caste “Tammali” recommended for inclusion by the Anantharaman Commission and accepted by the Government in their Order dated 23-9-1970 at Sl.No.29 of Group-D of the existing list of B.Cs was a “Shudra Caste” conﬁned to the 5 Districts of Nalgonda, Mahaboob Nagar, Karimnagar, Nizamabad and Adilabad of Telangana region and not to other parts of A.P. We also recommend to Government to issue appropriate modiﬁcations to the aforesaid order still in force incorporating the above recommendations; And (2) We recommend to the Government of A.P. to issue guidelines on issue of Social Status/Caste Certiﬁcates as formulated by the Supreme Court in Laveti Giri’s case and also our findings contained in Para 36 of this Report”. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when initially Tammali caste was included in G.O.Ms.No.1973 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 stated in the counter-aﬃdavits, 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 was 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 (SC) 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. These writ petitions, for the above reasons, are devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22nd October, 2008 GHN To 1 The Registrar NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary Social Welfare Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Marutur Mandal, Prakasam District. 5 Mandal Revenue Officer J. Panguluru (M), Prakasam Dist. 6 Mandal Educational Officer Dornala, Prakasam Dist. 7 2CCs to GP for Social Welfare 8 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR} Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KRD} Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KRD} [1] (1994) 5 SCC 244