IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16651 of 2005 Between: G.Udaya Kumar S/o.Saibaba, Studying 10th class, R/o. Venlatadri Palem, Miryalaguda Nalgonda District Rep. by its Father Sri Saibaba as Guardian and Next Friend. ..... Petitioner AND 1 The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, DSS Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-28 2 The Convenor/Admission Officer CEEP-2005, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan, Madab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The Principal S.E.S.- S.N.Murthy Polytechnic Khammam. .....Respondents 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in RC.No.1934/2005/TRI/VC-3, dated 6-2005 issued by the 1st respondent as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and violation of Articles 16, 19(1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same by further directing the third respondent to admit and permit the petitioner to prosecute the course as per the admission already given and to pass such other further order or orders as may be deemed ﬁt and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16651 of 2005 ORDER: Petitioner ﬁled writ petition challenging proceedings of ﬁrst respondent dated 28.6.2005 whereby and whereunder petitioner claims for admission into Polytechnic course for the years 2005-2008 in a Scheduled Tribe (ST) quota of Andhra Pradesh State, which is rejected on the ground that a migrant from other States to Andhra Pradesh is not eligible for admission into a seat reserved for ST in Andhra Pradesh. First respondent relied on the instructions of Government of India Circular No.BC.16014/1/A2 SC&BCD- I, dated 06.8.1984. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. Petitioner is native of Bhadbhad village of Bhiloli Taluk of Nanded District in Maharashtra. He belongs to ‘Munneru Varlu’, which is recognized as ST in State of Andhra Pradesh as per Constitutional (Scheduled Tribe) Order 1950. He admittedly migrated to Andhra Pradesh in 1980 and settled at Miryalaguda in Nalgonda District. His father is a contract labourer in Food Corporation of India. After passing qualifying examination, he appeared for common entrance test for Polytechnic. He got admission in SES & SN Murthy Polytechnic College, Khammam, third respondent herein. However while admitting petitioner, second respondent by endorsement dated 10.6.2005 requested ﬁrst respondent to conduct enquiry whether Munneru Varlu of Maharashtra can be recognized as ST in Andhra Pradesh. After conducting enquiry, impugned proceedings are issued. When cancellation of admission was imminent, present writ petition is filed. This Court admitted writ petition on 19.8.2005. Even before doing so, at the admission stage itself, this Court passed orders directing third respondent to permit petitioner to attend classes in I year Polytechnic course on condition that petitioner would not be entitled to claim any equities. There is now no dispute that by reason of said interim order petitioner has completed his course and he is also given certificate. The matter came before this Court at Interlocutory stage. Respondents did not ﬁle counter aﬃdavit. However as the question of law is involved, with the consent of parties, mater is being disposed of finally by this order. Constitution of India treats few classes/groups of citizens separately for the purpose of conferring special beneﬁts on them with the object of securing social, economic and political justice to them. Underlying philosophy of such special treatment is that without such proactive steps, preambular prescription of equality and justice would not be achieved. However, while doing so, Constitution has taken abundant care. The purpose of identifying Scheduled Castes (SCs) and STs is entrusted initially to President of India under Articles 341 and 342. There cannot be any intervention by any Authority with such list of identiﬁed groups except Parliament, which is competent to amend lists of SCs/STs. Constitution (Scheduled Castes) order 1950 and Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 are two such separate orders made by President, which were amended by the Parliament subsequently. Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 enumerates recognized STs with reference to each State and Union Territories in India. Whether a ST included in the list pertaining to one State can be considered as ST in other State? This question is no more res integra. In Action Committee v Union of India[1] a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court considered the question, “where a person belonging to a caste or tribe speciﬁed for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to State A migrates to State B where a caste or tribe with the same nomenclature is speciﬁed for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State B, will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and beneﬁts admissible to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes in State B? The question was answered by the Bench unanimously thus: We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suﬀered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is speciﬁed in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been speciﬁed may be totally diﬀerent. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements, which constitute the input for speciﬁcation, may also be totally diﬀerent. Therefore, merely because a given caste is speciﬁed in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and beneﬁts admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State “for the purposes of this Constitution”. In view of the binding precedent, communication of ﬁrst respondent, which is impugned in writ petition, is unassailable. Writ petition therefore cannot be accepted. However as petitioner successfully completed Three year Diploma in Electronics & Communication Engineering (ECE), what would be his position? There cannot be any dispute that though this Court, while passing interim order, observed that petitioner shall not claim any equities, it does not mean that Diploma in ECE obtained by petitioner is total nullity. Insofar as Diploma obtained by him is concerned, same would endure the beneﬁt of petitioner but not community status, based on which he obtained admission in Diploma in ECE. In this case, petitioner claims that he belongs to Maharashtra and also obtained a certiﬁcate that he is a ST. Therefore it is not a case of fraud where he obtained admission based on spurious caste certificate. I n Kumari Madhuri Patil v Addl. Commissioner[2], Supreme Court while dealing with a case of fraud wherein two daughters of Laxman Pandurang Patil obtained admission into MBBS course based on a fraudulent certificate. Ultimately certiﬁcates were cancelled. Supreme Court upheld cancellation of social status but permitted students to appear for ﬁnal year examination of MBBS course, while observing that candidates, in future, shall not be entitled to any beneﬁts on the basis of fraudulent social status. I n State of Maharashtra v Milind[3], respondent obtained admission into MBBS course claiming himself to be belonging to ‘Halba’ a Scheduled Tribe. On veriﬁcation, it was found that it was fraudulent and was cancelled. In the High Court respondent succeeded. The Supreme Court however set aside judgment of High Court. However having noticed that respondent completed course and was practicing as a Doctor, made following observations. Respondent 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practising as a doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody’s beneﬁt to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to Respondent 1. If any action is taken against Respondent 1, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practising as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. In this case, initially petitioner was denied admission into Diploma course on the ground that his ST status in Maharashtra cannot be treated as ST in Andhra Pradesh, which is in accordance with ratio laid down by Supreme Court. However as he has completed the course, this Court is of considered opinion that Diploma certiﬁcate in ECE obtained by petitioner need not be cancelled. However hereafter, based on such social status, petitioner shall not be permitted either for securing job or for admission to further course. The writ petition, with above observations, is accordingly disposed of. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 04, 2008 YS To 1. The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, DSS Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-28 2. The Convenor/Admission Officer CEEP-2005, Sankethika Vidya Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3. Two C.C.s to Government Pleader for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4. Two C.D. copies. [1] (1994) 5 SCC 244 [2] (1994) 6 SCC 241 : AIR 1995 SC 94 [3] (2001) 1 SCC 4 : AIR 2001 SC 393