THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.27256 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents 1 and 2 in conducting investigation into the genuineness of the caste certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner states that she belongs to ‘Konda Kapu’ Community, which is classified as a Scheduled Tribe. That she completed S.S.C in 1977, and due to domestic and financial difficulties she did not pursue her further education. She states that since she belongs to Scheduled Tribe and is a permanent resident of Sharabavaram Village, she obtained Scheduled Tribe Certificate from the Tahsildar, Prattipadu in 1979. While so, pursuant to the notification issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Secunderabad, she applied for the post of Office Clerk, and after being successful in the written examination as well as interview, she was selected for the said post in South Central Railway under S.T category. She joined duty on 23.01.1982 and thereafter, she was promoted as Senior Clerk in 1983; Head Clerk w.e.f. 04.06.1985; Chief Clerk w.e.f. 10.03.1986; Office Superintendent on 10.02.1987 and Chief Office Superintendent w.e.f. 10.05.1999. While in service, she states that she completed B.Com from Osmania University during 1984 by way of correspondence course. While so, based on a complaint given by All India Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Railway Employees Association that she had produced false and bogus S.T. caste certificate, at the time of entry into service, the Vigilance Branch of South Central Railway initiated inquiry into the matter in 1984. The petitioner states that she submitted a detailed representation to the Vigilance Department of South Central Railway stating that she belongs to Konda Kapu, which is a Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter the inquiry was closed against her. Not satisfied with the report of the Vigilance Department of South Central Railway, the All India Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Employees Association pressurized the South Central Railway to refer the case of the petitioner to the third respondent-District Collector, East Godavari, and succumbing to such pressure, the South Central Railway referred the matter to the District Collector, East Godavari, for verification of caste certificate of the petitioner and the same is pending. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that while the matter with regard to the genuineness of the S.T. Certificate is pending before the District Collector, East Godavari, the second respondent- Inspector of Police, Crime Investigation Department RCIU, Visakhapatnam, at the instance of the first respondent-Additional Director Vigilance of Police, Crime Investigation Department, has issued a notice to her on 24.11.2009, for conducting enquiry into the genuineness of her caste certificate, and such action of the second respondent, the petitioner contends, is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if there is any complaint against the petitioner as regards the genuineness of the caste certificate produced by her, an enquiry should be conducted by the competent authority or the Scrutiny Committee constituted, on the basis of the material produced before them, but not by the police attached to the Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell under Rule 9(3) of A.P. (S.C., S.T & B.C) Regulation of Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for short ‘the Rules’). As in spite of adjourning the matter on several occasions, the respondents did not file the counter-affidavit, this Court by order dated 13.08.2010 ordered the appearance of the third respondent. Pursuant to the said order, the third respondent appeared before this Court on 27.08.2010. He also filed a counter-affidavit. Thereafter, on 09.09.2010, the learned Additional Advocate General took notice and sought time to get instructions in the matter, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in M.Karunakar v State of A.P., B.C. Welfare Department[1], wherein this Court struck down Rule 9(3) of the Rules. Today when the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, submitted that pursuant to the judgment of this Court in M.Karunakar (supra) striking down Rule 9(3) of the Rules, the Government has issued a Memo bearing No.4199/C1/2000, dated 29.03.2001 requesting all the Collectors and the Chairman of District Level Scrutiny Committees to observe due process of law and procedure as directed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and any non observance thereof will be viewed seriously. The relevant portion of the Memo reads as under: “Collectors may also issue instructions to the concerned authorities under them that the High Court has struck down the procedure/inquiry by an Inspector of Police attached to the protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell, contemplated under Rule 9(3) of the Act and declared it to be otiose. In view of this, the authorities should dispense with this enquiry contemplated under Rule 9(3) of the Act. All the Collectors and Chairman of District Level Scrutiny Committees are requested to observe the due process of law and the procedure as directed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Non observance of due process of law and procedural fairness, will be viewed seriously.” Since this Court has already struck down Rule 9(3) of the Rules in M.Karunakar’s case (supra) and the Government in implementation thereof has issued Memo dated 29.03.2001 directing the Collectors and Chairman of District Level Scrutiny Committees to dispense with the enquiry contemplated under Rule 9(3) of the Rules, it has to be held that conducting of enquiry by respondents 1 and 2 into the genuineness of the S.T Caste Certificate of the petitioner, is illegal. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, respondents 1 and 2 shall not investigate into the genuineness of the caste certificate of the petitioner. However, the enquiry, which is going on before the District Collector, East Godavari, can go on. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 21.10.2010 va [1] 2001 (2) ALD 18