IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 24319 of 2000 Between: Dr.I.Marianna, S/o Mr.I.Anthony H.No.4-2-151/12/1, Srinivasanagar, Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, declaring the constitution of High Level Consultative Committee under G.O.MS.NO.3, Social Welfare Department, date 18-1-1999 and the consequential recommendations made by it, if any, on the social status of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law, without the authority of law and violative of the Provisional of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certiﬁcates Act, 1993 and the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the Directive Principles of State Policy and issue the consequential direction not to give eﬀect to the same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.R.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following Order: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the constitution of the High Level Consultative Committee under G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 18-01-1999, and the consequential recommendations made by it, if any, on the social status of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certiﬁcates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner claims that he belongs to the scheduled caste. His grievance, in short, is that despite repeated enquiries into his caste status, the authorities are needlessly harassing him by causing one enquiry or the other into his caste status and that a High Level Consultative Committee was constituted in the year 1996, just a few months prior to the date on which the Act was brought into force with eﬀect from 15-05-1997, to cause one more enquiry into his caste status. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to Sections 19 and 20 of the Act to contend that, since the Act has an overriding eﬀect, the Committee constituted is without jurisdiction and is a nullity. Learned counsel would also refer to the notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer dated 28-11-2000 directing the petitioner to attend the enquiry along with the records to prove his caste status failing which it would be deemed that he had no case. He would also rely on the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in M.A.No.449 of 1999 in O.A.No.170 of 1999 dated 20-04-2000. It is necessary to note that the said notice dated 28-11-2000, though passed prior to the date of ﬁling of the writ petition on 08-12-2000, is not even under challenge in the present writ petition. No immunity in absolute terms can be sought by a person who claims that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or other Backward Classes, from an enquiry being held to verify his caste status. The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If, and when, a person takes undue advantage of the said beneﬁcent provision by obtaining the beneﬁts of reservation although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but, in eﬀect and substance, plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certiﬁcate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, the State shall not be a helpless spectator in the matter. (State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar[1]). A person who enters Service producing a false caste certiﬁcate, and obtains appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or other Backward Classes, thus depriving a genuine candidate of that category of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of the Court. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the Court be justiﬁed in exercising its equity jurisdiction in his favour. (R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala[2]; Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development [3]). Likewise, a person who plays fraud, and obtains a false certiﬁcate, cannot plead estoppel. The principle of estoppel is inapplicable as there is no promise made by the State that it would protect perpetration of fraud defeating the constitutional objective. No promise is made that his false certificate will be respected and accepted by the State. (State of T.N. v. A. Gurusamy[4]; Kumari Madhuri Patil3). A person who has obtained appointment by playing fraud, cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such an appointment is no appointment in law and is void from the inception. (R. Vishwanatha Pillai2). The burden of proof of social status is always on the person who seeks constitutional socio-economic advantages. It is no part of the duty of the State to disprove or otherwise. (Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. v. Laveti Giri[5]). The mere fact that a High Level Consultative Committee has enquired into the petitioner’s caste status or submitted a report cannot be said to have, by itself, caused any prejudice to the petitioner. If, as contended by him, any action has been initiated pursuant thereto, it is always open to the petitioner to put forth all defences available to him in law in reply to such a notice issued regarding his caste status. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court questioning the constitution of High Level Consultative Committee to enquire into his caste status. When either the constitution of such a Committee, or the report submitted by it, has not culminated in any action being taken against him, I see no reason to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in this matter. Needless to state that the petitioner is entitled to put forth all the defences available to him in law in reply to the said show cause notice issued to him by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28-11-2000. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:10-09-2008 Usd To 1. The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 3. Two CD copies. [1] (2007) 1 SCC 80 [2] (2004) 2 SCC 105 [3] (1994) 6 SCC 241 [4] (1997) 3 SCC 542 [5] (1995) 4 SCC 32