IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11955 of 2008 Between: S.Sreenivasulu, S/o. Ramachandraiah, Hindu, Z.P.High School, Duvvuru (V), Sangam(M), Nellore (District), R/o. A..R. Palem(V), Vidavaluru (M), Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Kadapa. 3 V.Adi Ladshmi @ Hima Bindu, W/o. The Petitioner , Hindu, Tahsildar's Office, Chapadu (M), Kadapa District. Residing at D.No.8/96-A, Parandhamaiah Complex, Ashok Nagar, Badvel Town, Kadapa 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of the writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on part of the respondent No.2 in not initiating inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the community certificate issued in favour of the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry over the same as prescribed. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VISHNU KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1&2: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by S.Sreenivasulu assailing the action of the District Collector, Kadapa-2nd respondent in not conducting enquiry with regard to the social status of V.Adi Lakshmi @ Hima Bindu- 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner is no other than the husband of the 3rd respondent. Their marital life ran in rough weather and consequently criminal proceedings came to be initiated by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector, Kadapa-2nd respondent complaining that 3rd respondent secured employment by misrepresenting her social status. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent belongs to Balija Community (O.C.). There being no action on his representation, he approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 12.06.2008. 3rd respondent received notice and entered appearance through a counsel. She filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that on the complaint of the petitioner, the District Collector, Kadapa directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammulamadugu, to conduct an enquiry, and in turn, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammulamadugu, instructed the Tahsildar, Mydukuru, to enquire with regard to social status of the 3rd respondent. Thereupon, the Tahsildar, Mydukuru, conducted enquiry and recorded the statements of the 3rd respondent and some others and found that the father of the 3rd respondent belongs to ‘Sali’ caste. For better appreciation, I may refer para.5 of the counter-affidavit and it is thus: “5. In reply to para.5 of the Writ Affidavit I submit that I was appointed as Typist by the Government on compassionate grounds against the vacancies of OC (Women) vide the 2nd respondent proceedings Ref:No:A3/27777739/2002, dt.20.02.2004 but not under BC category, as my 1st husband died on 11.12.2002 in an accident and I was joined in the service on 23.02.2004. It is not out of place to mention that I voluntarily deposited the excess paid amount to me from 23.02.2004 to 31.10.2006, an amount of Rs.82,426/-, on 19.12.2006 to the Government Treasury and further sum of rupees as interest of Rs.8,038/- and deposited to the govt. treasury on 12.04.2007. And I filed a criminal complaint in the Badvel Police Station and it was registered as Crime No.77 of 2006 in C.C.No.8 of 2007 and the case is pending the before the J.M.F.C. Court, Badvel. As counter blast, he made representation to the 2nd respondent to enquire in to my caste. On the complaint of the Writ Petitioner the District Collector, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, to conduct an enquiry with regard to my caste. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu instructed the Tashildar, Mydukuru to enquire the caste of Smt.Vanjamuri Adi Laxmi, typist in the office of the Thashildar, Chapadu on the complaint filed by the Writ Petitioner S.Sreenivasulu, A.R. Palem (V), Vidavaluru (M), Nellore District, alleging that Vanjamuri Adi Laxmi belongs to Balija caste. The Thashildar, Mydukuru Mandal enquired into Smt.Vanjamuri Adi Laxmi and also recorded the statements of Sri Kadapa Chinnaiah, Vaddi Narasimhulyu, P.Satyanarayana, Kadapa Suryanarayana, Kadapa Pedda Chinnaiah of Mydukuru Mandal, Kapada District that Smt.Vanjamuri Adi Laxmi her father V.Sudhakar, who is running cloth business in Room No.6 of Laxmi Cloth Stores, Saibaba Cloth Market, Mydukuru, Sudhakar and his father Sri Vanjamuri Subbanna, who was a prominent person in Prodduturu cloth business and was weaving the sarees and was doing the business and followed traditions of weaving community and they will pray their god “Bhavan Rushi” and their gothram is “Markendya”. The Thashildar in his enquiry found that Sri V.Sudhakar belongs to ‘sale’ caste and his daughter also belongs to ‘sale caste’. The Transfer Certificate (TC-2/1996-1997) 238719 Admission No.7882 issued by Head Master, Mydukuru is mentioned ‘sale’ caste. The question of 2nd respondent has not initiated any enquiry is not correct.” 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has not taken any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner regarding the social status of the 3rd respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the social status of the 3rd respondent is not at all relevant since she secured appointment under compassionate grounds. 8. A fact remains that the representation submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent is pending. The out come of the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent on the representation is not yet communicated to the petitioner. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner and in case any enquiry has been conducted on the said representation, the out come of the enquiry may be communicated to the petitioner. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th July, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}