THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No. 19035 of 2002 Dated. 18–11-2010 Between: Blessina Rani …Petitioner Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, Warangal District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 19035 of 2002 ORAL ORDER: Asserting arbitrary conduct by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in conducting repeated inquiries against the petitioner’s community status is this writ petition filed. The 3rd respondent had complained to the Commissioner, Intermediate Education on 29-01-2002 (with a copy marked to the 2nd respondent – District Collector, Warangal for necessary action) alleging that the petitioner obtained employment as a Junior Lecturer in Botany in a vacancy reserved for SC-B category in Zone- V; that she manipulated the community certificate though belonging to BC-C community and obtained employment on a false community certificate. It was further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner completed her M.Sc., in 1995 from Kakatiya University, Warangal and according to her Post Graduation admission record she belongs to BC- C community and her admission number is ‘582’. As the complainant was immediately below the petitioner in the order of merit, if the petitioner’s appointment were invalidated on account of the false community certificate furnished by her, the complainant would secure employment. It would appear that pursuant to the complaint of the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education addressed a letter dated 27-07-2002 to the District Collector to conduct an inquiry into the complaint and submit a report urgently. The Collector in turn directed the 1st respondent – the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal to conduct an inquiry on the complaint of the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent conducted an inquiry on 26-04-2002 in the village; verified the records; recorded the statements of village and caste elders and submitted a report on 01-05- 2002 confirming the petitioner’s social status as SC-B (Madiga). According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent made another representation that the inquiry was not conducted in his presence. Thereupon the 1st respondent has conducted an open inquiry on 26-06- 2002 directing the 3rd respondent to be present and thereafter forwarded a report to the Collector confirming his earlier conclusion that the petitioner belongs to SC-B community. The petitioner complains, the 3rd respondent addressed another complaint on 16-08-2002 to the Joint Collector, Warangal about the petitioner’s social status in response whereto the official respondents are allegedly intending to conduct an enquiry afresh. The 1st respondent – the Revenue Divisional Officer filed a counter affidavit stating that according to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’), an enquiry should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules issued under the Act. Rule 9 (1) enjoins that the District Collector, on receipt of a complaint or if has reasons to believe that a false certificate has been obtained, should refer the case to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee; and under Rule 9 (2), the Scrutiny Committee shall follow the procedure contemplated in Rule 8(d)(1) to (7) and make its recommendations to the District Collector for passing final orders. The District Collector is also authorized to cause enquiry through the Revenue Divisional Officer but must take a decision on the basis of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and the reports of the officials. In the counter affidavit, in summation it is stated that successive enquiries, even if conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer on his own do not amount to an enquiry under the provisions of the Act and that until a decision is taken by the Collector, as enjoined by the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of Rule 6 to 9 of the Rules made under the Act, an enquiry cannot be said to have been concluded. At any rate, unless the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is examined by the Scrutiny Committee and its findings are furnished to the District Collector and the District Collector takes a decision thereon, there is no conclusion of an enquiry under the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder. Under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act, the District level Scrutiny Committee shall comprise (1) the Joint Collector as Chairman; (2) the District Revenue Officer; (3) Deputy Director (Social Welfare); Deputy Director (Tribal Welfare)/District Tribal Welfare Officer; Deputy Director (Backward Classes Welfare)/District Backward Classes Welfare Officer; (4) Officer of the Research organization in the Commissionerate of SW/TW nominated by the concerned Heads of the Departments and (5) Officer representing the PCR/Vigilance Cell in the District, as members. The Scrutiny Committee on receipt of the case referred to by the competent authority under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules framed under the Act is required to conduct an enquiry regarding doubtful claims, by giving a notice in Form-6 to the applicant and thereafter shall follow the process under the Rules. Eventually, under Rule 9 (7) the District Collector should decide whether the certificate is genuine or fraudulent and in case of a fraudulent certificate shall pass an order canceling the certificate issued. It is alleged by the 3rd respondent that the petitioner had earlier furnished a certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the effect that she is a ‘BC-C community candidate being a Scheduled Tribe Christian and that her Post Graduation Certificate also reflects that position. If that be the case, why the petitioner’s post graduation certification reads as BC-B should be enquired into. At any rate, on the basis of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, the District Collector is enjoined to take a decision. All the enquiries conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer do not amount to a substantive inquiry under the Act. It is also not clear why the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted repeated enquiries. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the 2nd respondent – District Collector to call for a report or recommendation from the District Level Scrutiny Committee and to pass an order on the complaint of the 3rd respondent expeditiously, and in any event within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner has a grievance regarding the final order passed by the Collector he may pursue the available statutory or other remedies thereagainst. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 18-11-2010 Pvks/*