IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7842 of 1999 Between: A. Mohan, S/o. Kommaiah, S.V. Ayurvedic College, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Dist. Collector, Warangal. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Warangal. 4 The District Collector, Chittoor. 5 The Joint Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devesthanam, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 6 Gandham Padmavathi, S.V. Ayurvedic College, Tirupathi. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondnet No.2 in issuing proceedings No.D2/1026/89 dt.19-9-98, thereby restoring the caste certificate issued in favour of the 6th respondent certifying as she belongs to Yellapi Community of B.C.'A', as the same is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondnets to conduct De-novo end detailed enquiry and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7842 of 1999 ORDER: 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. 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). 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; Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development) . 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; 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). A de novo, and a detailed, inquiry into the caste status of the 6th respondent is sought by the petitioner as a consequence of his request that the proceedings of the District Collector, Warangal dated 19.09.1998, restoring the caste certificate issued in favour of the 6th respondent certifying that she belongs to “Yellapi” community under BC-A category, be declared as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in the S.V.Ayurveda College, Tirupathi and the 6th respondent, a lecturer in the same college, both claim to belong to the B.C-A category. The petitioner would, however, contend that the 6th respondent actually belongs to Munnuru Kapu caste and does not come under BC-A. He would further point out that the 6th respondent throughout her career had never claimed to belong to the BC category, that all of a sudden at the time of her recruitment as lecturer she had produced a community certificate that she belonged to the BC-A category and had secured employment claiming the social status of BC-A which, according to the petitioner, was a bogus caste certificate. Respondents 2 to 5 had earlier initiated an enquiry against the 6th respondent and, ultimately, the caste certificate issued to the 6th respondent, certifying that she belonged to BC-A, was cancelled vide proceedings dated 08.03.1991. The said order of cancellation was the subject matter of challenge by the 6th respondent in W.P.No.5717 of 1991 which was ultimately disposed of by this Court by order dated 22.09.1994. This Court observed that no material was produced to connect the 6th respondent herein to some other caste except for the averment in the counter that she belonged to ‘Munnuru Kapu’ community, that since the cancellation of the caste certificate resulted in civil consequences an appropriate enquiry should have been held instead of acting on the basis of the report submitted by some other authorities and cancelling the caste certificate. This Court further observed that cancellation of the caste certificate changed the social status and, as such, all precautions should have been taken into consideration while quashing the order. This Court directed the respondents to hold an enquiry and then take an appropriate decision regarding the caste of the petitioner as on the date of securing the job, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was held and the District Collector, Warangal, by the impugned order, restored the petitioner’s caste as “Yellapi”, (which admittedly falls under BC-A category). The 2nd respondent observed that the father of the 6th respondent, a retired Tehsildar, had obtained the BC caste certificate for the “Yellapi” caste from the then Deputy Tehsildar, Warangal (Urban) vide proceedings dated 12.08.1980 and also from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nallabelli vide proceedings dated 06.10.1987, that on the matter being referred for enquiry the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, vide proceedings dated 27.12.1990, had stated that the BC caste certificate obtained by the 6th respondent was a false one and that the 6th respondent was served with a notice asking her to show-cause as to why her caste certificate for “Yellapi” caste should not be cancelled. The 2nd respondent referred to a Government Memo wherein it was stated that “Yellapi” caste in B.C. ‘A’ group generally belonged to the “Rayalaseema” area, that the members of this caste were an ex-criminal tribe dwelling in hillocks and that they did not reside in any part of Telangana area. In the said Government Memo, it was also stated that, if any “Yellapi” caste certificate was issued in the Telangana area, it should be cancelled. The 2nd respondent noted the subsequent proceedings of cancellation dated 08.03.1991 and the order of this Court in W.P.No.5717 of 1991. He also referred to the Government Memo dated 31.03.1994 wherein the Collectors of Telangana area were requested not to cancel the “Yellapi” caste certificate and to restore such certificates, if any, cancelled earlier. The 2nd respondent noted that the 6th respondent had contended that her mother, who hailed from Warangal, belonged to “Munnuru Kapu” caste, that she had married her father who belonged to “Yellapi” caste and that her nearest relatives were residing in Karimnagar District. The 2nd respondent referred the matter again to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal for enquiry. The R.D.O, in his report, stated that the 6th respondent’s father hailed from Karimnagar District and, according to his deposition, he belonged to Yellapi caste. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal requested that an enquiry be caused by the Collector, Karimnagar since the 6th respondent’s father had relatives in Karimnagar District i.e. in Karimnagar and Peddapalli divisions. It is evident from the proceedings of the 2nd respondent that the case was referred to the District Collector, Karimnagar for enquiry, that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar and Peddapalli sent their enquiry reports through the District Collector, Karimnagar, that both the R.D.O. Warangal, and Peddapalli in Karimnagar District, had reported that the 6th respondent’s father belonged to “Yellapi” caste whereas the R.D.O, Karimnagar had reported that no person belonging to “Yellapi” caste resided in Karimnagar. The District Collector observed that in view of the reports of the three R.D.Os, as per the instructions contained in the Government Memo dated 31.03.1994, the caste certificate issued to the 6th respondent, vide proceedings dated 12.08.1980 by the then Tahasildar, Warangal and the certificate of the M.R.O. Nallabelli dated 16.10.1987 which were cancelled by the Collector, Warangal, was restored and that the 6th respondent’s caste was ”Yellapi”. This Court, in its order dated 30.04.2008, noted that the R.D.O., Peddapalli, in his report dated 31.01.1997, had informed that he had made enquiries with Sri G.V.D.Madhava Rao, a close relative of the 6th respondent, who had stated that the 6th respondent’s father, his cousin, belong to the Yellapi caste. This Court also noted that the R.D.O. Warangal in his report dated 21.06.1996 had merely stated that Sri Ambari Papa Rao and V.G.Madhava Rao were both related to the 6th respondent’s father and were residents of Karimnagar Mandal and, accordingly, directed the Government to make available copies o f a l l the reports. Pursuant thereto, the reports of all the three R.D.Os are filed. It is evident from the report of the R.D.O. Warangal that he had caused enquiry with Sri J.Sanjeeva Reddy, a retired Deputy Collector, who stated that the 6th respondent’s father worked under him as a Deputy Tehsildar and that he knew her father and the family members of the 6th respondent’s father, that the 6th respondent’s father belonged to “Yellapi” caste and hailed from Karimnagar District and that he had settled in Warangal. The R.D.O. also recorded the deposition of the 6th respondent’s father who stated that his forefathers belonged to Karimnagar District and, though he belonged to Karimnagar district, he had studied in Hyderabad, that he also stated that his forefathers belonged to Yellapi caste and that his daughter had obtained a caste certificate, from the erstwhile taluka office, vide proceedings dated 12.08.1980. The R.D.O observed that the original of the said proceedings dated 12.08.1980 was not traceable in the Mandal Revenue Office, Hanamkonda, that the 6th respondent’s father had stated that, when the 6th respondent, (his daughter), was practicing at Nallabelli she had obtained another “Yellapi” caste certificate afresh and had applied for a job in S.V.College, Tirupathi and that his daughter belonged to “Yellapi” caste. The R.D.O. also noted that Sri A.Srinvasa Rao, the Office bearer of the Yellapi Sangam, Warangal had also given a statement that the 6th respondent’s father was his close relative, and the brother-in-law of his eldest brother, and that he belonged to “Yellapi” community. The R.D.O. also noted that the President of the Yellapi Sangam, Karimnagar had also given a certificate that the 6th respondent’s father belonged to the Yellapi caste. It is on the basis of the sworn statements of Sri J.Sanjeeva Reddy, Sri A.Srinivasa Rao and the certificate issued by the President of the Yellapi Sangam that the R.D.O. Warangal came to the conclusion that the 6th respondent belonged to “Yellapi” caste. The R.D.O. Warangal noted that, in the Transfer Certificate No.127 dated 19.12.1980 issued to the 6th respondent, her caste was shown as B.C., but the actual caste and group had not been mentioned therein and that the Principal, of A.L. Government Ayurvedic College, Warangal, had issued letter dated 05.01.1996 to the effect that the 6th respondent’s caste was “Yellapi”. The R.D.O. also recorded the statement of the petitioner who stated that, as per his local knowledge, the 6th respondent used to state that her caste was Munnuru Kapu, but she had actually joined the Ayurveda College, Warangal producing B.C. ‘A’ “Yellapi” caste certificate. He further stated that, in the year 1987, the 6th respondent had applied for the lecturer’s post as a B.C. ‘A’ candidate and that he also belonged to B.C. ‘A’. He stated that he had complained to local persons that the 6th respondent, in fact, belonged to Munnuru Kapu caste. The petitioner further states that, while studying in high school and intermediate, the 6th respondent did not disclose her caste and, therefore, it was not recorded in the Transfer Certificate. The R.D.O held that it was evident from the material on record that the 6th respondent’s father hailed from Karimnagar District, that he stated that he belonged to “Yellapi” caste, and other than the statement of the petitioner, there was no other material on record to show that the 6th respondent belonged to Munnuru Kapu caste. The R.D.O. Warangal observed that the 6th respondent’s father was a retired employee of Warangal revenue establishment and, if necessary, the service record of the 6th respondent’s father could be verified. The R.D.O. Warangal further stated that it was not possible to go further in detail in this regard and, since the 6th respondent’s father admitted that his relatives were at Karimnagar, the matter may be referred to the District Collector, Karimnagar. The R.D.O. Karimnagar recorded the statement of Sri Anaberi Papa Rao, according to whom the 6th respondent’s father, his relative, belonged to “Yellapu” caste. The R.D.O. observed that “Yellapi” caste certificate could not be given to “Yellapu” caste members. Sri N.Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that persons, who were either close associates or relatives of the 6th respondent were alone examined, that there was no documentary evidence on record to show that the 6th respondent belonged to “Yellapi” caste and that the least that could have been done, to ascertain the caste status of the 6th respondent, was to verify the service record of the 6th respondent’s father who was a retired Deputy Tehsildar. Learned Counsel would submit that the benefits of reservation should rightly go only to the candidates belonging to BC-A category, that it cannot be taken away by a person who did not belong to the BC-A group and, since the 6t h respondent belonged to Munnuru Kapu caste which does not fall under BC-A category, she was not entitled to claim the benefits of reservation under the said category. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, on the other hand, would submit that it is only after calling for a detailed report, from the R.D.Os’ of three separate divisions in two different Districts, that the District Collector came to the conclusion that the 6th respondent belonged to “Yellapi” caste and that such conclusion of the District Collector did not necessitate interference. Learned Government Pleader would contend that, while the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the R.D.O. and his statement was also recorded, nothing prevented him from producing material, if he had any, in support of his allegations that the 6th respondent, in fact, belonged to Munnuru Kapu and not “Yellapi” caste. Sri T.S.Anand, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent, would contend that the present writ appeal is an abuse of process of Court and has been resorted only to needlessly harass the 6th respondent. Learned Counsel would submit that repeated enquiries into the caste status of the 6th respondent violated her fundamental rights and caused her undue harassment and mental agony and that, since the 2nd respondent had conclusively opined that the 6th respondent belonged to “Yellapi” caste, no interference was called for in the present writ petition. In the case on hand, the 6th respondent is said to have been issued a caste certificate in the year 1980 by the then Tahasildar, Warangal, which records, admittedly, are not traceable. She joined A.L.Ayurvedic College, Warangal and studied thereat from 1980 till 1986, evidently, after having been issued a caste certificate in the year 1980. Curiously, while the caste certificate issued to her in the year 1980, is said to show that her caste as “Yellapi”, in B.C. “A” category, the Transfer Certificate issued by the college on 19.12.1980, merely records that the 6th respondent belonged to the BC category and her actual caste, or the BC group to which she claims to belong, is not reflected therein. It is not known on what basis the Principal of A.L.Ayurvedic College, Warangal issued the certificate dated 05.01.1996 to the effect that the 6th respondent’s caste was “Yellapi” in B.C. “A”. The statements recorded by the R.D.O.s are either of persons who were associated with the 6th respondent’s father while he was in service or from his near relatives. The R.D.O. Warangal, himself, observes that the 6th respondent’s father was a retired employee of Warangal establishment and that, if necessary, his service record could be got verified. Since the 6th respondent’s father is, admittedly, a Government servant the least that ought to have been done to ascertain whether the 6th respondent, in fact, belonged to “Yellapi” caste, under the BC-A category, was to verify the service records of Sri G.Narahari, the father of the 6th respondent. The enquiry conducted is, to say the least, perfunctory. Self-serving statements of relatives ought not to have been made the basis for restoring the 6th respondent’s caste certificate when the service record of the 6th respondent’s father, which would have reflected his caste status, could easily have been verified. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 19.09.1998 is set aside. The 2nd respondent shall cause verification of the service record of the 6th respondent’s father to ascertain whether or not the 6th respondent belonged to “Yellapi” caste under the BC-A category. He shall, thereafter, take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law as to whether the caste certificate of the 6th respondent should be restored. It must, however, be borne in mind that, in case the 6th respondent actually belongs to the “Yellapi” caste, then repeated enquiries would, indeed, have caused her needless harassment. With a view to ensure that she is not put to such an ordeal all over again it is but appropriate that the petitioner also be permitted to submit a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent, enclosing therewith any valid documentary information which he may have, or which he may obtain, to show that the 6th respondent does not belong to the “Yellapi” caste. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the 2nd respondent shall take such a representation also into consideration before arriving at a final conclusion regarding the caste status of the 6th respondent. With a view to ensure that the matter is given a quietus at the earliest, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 12.08.2008 GS/ASP