THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26550 of 2006 DATED: 08.06.2010 Between: B. Satish .. Petitioner And The Director of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Sri B. Satish with a prayer to issue direction, order or writ, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting him to attend classes in B.P.T. Course in the 4th respondent College, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Yerukala Caste, which is Scheduled Tribe. He completed Intermediate and secured 64.5% in science subjects. He applied for B.P.T. and B.Sc. (MLT) Course. In the entrance examination, he secured 1808 rank and attended for counseling in N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, on 15.10.2006. He opted for admission into B.P.T. Course-2006 under Scheduled Tribe Category. The University also issued registration- cum-verification form. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.3069/2006/TR1/VC-1, dated 02-11-2006, requesting the District Collector, Nellore, to place the matter before the District Level Scrutiny Committee, for an enquiry with regard to the social status of the petitioner. Thereupon, the District Collector, Nellore, asked the petitioner to appear on 30.11.2006 at 2.30 p.m. before the Scrutiny Committee at Nellore. The petitioner appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, but the Scrutiny Committee adjourned the case to various dates. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court with the prayer stated supra, invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 22.12.2006 and an interim order has been passed in W.P.M.P.No.34105 of 2006. 4. The 4th respondent entered appearance and filed counter and also moved W.V.M.P.No.2892 of 2007 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 22.12.2006 passed in W.P.M.P.No.34105 of 2006. 5. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very initiation of proceedings by the 1st respondent is contrary to the provisions of Act 16 of 1993. A further submission has been made that the Caste Certificate issued by the M.R.O., Maheswaram, is to be treated as valid till it is set aside in accordance with the provisions of Act 16 of 1993. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner filed the writ petition aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent with regard to initiation of proceedings in respect of his social status. A further submission has been made that the Course for which the petitioner sought admission in the year 2006 has been completed by 2008 and, thus, the writ petition virtually became infructuous. 9. It is not in dispute that the Course, for which the petitioner sought admission, is only two-year diploma course and the period of two years has been elapsed in the year 2008. Thereby, the writ petition has virtually become infructuous. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 8th June, 2010. IBL