THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23840 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is employed in the South Central Railway against a vacancy reserved in favour of Scheduled Tribes. It is stated that the father of the petitioner was recognized and certified as Scheduled Tribe, ever since 1960, by various authorities, and in the recent past also, caste certificates were issued by the concerned authorities to the petitioner and members of his family. The 1st respondent issued notice, dated 29.10.2009, to the petitioner, stating that a complaint has been received alleging that he obtained the caste certificate from the office of Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, fraudulently, and that enquiry would be conducted on 11.10.2009 in the office of the Joint Collector at Machilipatnam. The petitioner was required to attend the enquiry with documentary evidence in support of his social status. The petitioner challenges the said notice. His contention is that the social status of himself and his family members was certified more than once and the exercise proposed to be undertaken is without basis and jurisdiction. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondent No.1 and Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The A.P. (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 1993 and the Rules made thereunder confer power upon the District Collector to cancel a caste certificate issued to an individual either suo moto, or on a complaint received from any one. Before an order of cancellation is passed, an enquiry is required to be conducted by the District Level Scrutiny Committee, headed by the Joint Collector. The District Revenue Officer happens to be the Convener of the Committee. When the very basis for instituting the proceedings is for cancellation of the certificate, the fact that a caste certificate was issued to the petitioner, or his father, cannot be pleaded as a ground. It amounts to begging the question. The petitioner has to satisfy the committee about his social status. It is not even alleged that the 1st respondent does not have the jurisdiction to issue the notice. This Court does not find any basis to admit the writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:06.11.2009. GJ