IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6883 of 2009 Between: Shaik Noorjahan Begum, W/o. late Shaik Khasim, H/o. Achuta Srinviasa Rao, D.No. 6-10-10/3, Pathuru, Near Ammavari Temple, Kodevari Street, Tadepalligudem -534 101. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2 The District Educational Officer, West Godavari District. 3 Shaik Waheeda Begum, W/o.Not Known to the petitioner R/o. Kumaravalli Village, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 11-01-2009 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he refused to issue legal heir certificate to the petitioner. Heard Sri S.R.Sanku, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. One Sri Shaik Khasim was the employee of Mandal Parishad Primary School, Prattipadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. He died while working as Head Master of the said School. When the petitioner and respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 seeking compassionate appointment with the competing claims that each of them is the legal heir of the deceased Head Master, the issue was referred by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. By the impugned endorsement, respondent No.1 expressed his inability to issue legal heir certificate on the ground that rival claims were made by the petitioner and respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 ought to have held an enquiry and decided the issue. The learned counsel is not able to trace the power of respondent No.1 to decide the disputed question of fact as to the status of the persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased employee to any statutory provision. In the face of the competing claims, the competent authority is required to adjudicate the same, with reference to the evidence, and respondent No.1 is not vested with such a power of adjudication. It is only the competent Civil Court, which is entitled to decide the issue on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the rival claimants. In this view of the matter, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction either for a succession certificate or a declaration regarding her status as the legally wedded wife of the deceased Head Master. Subject to these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.9000 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st April, 2009 vrn