THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5061 of 2003 DATE: 11.02.2010 Between: P.Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner and The District Collector, East Godavari, and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI M.LAKSHMANA SARMA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5061 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.02.2003 issued by respondent No.4. Heard Sri M.Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing the respondents and carefully perused the records. The petitioner, who claimed to belong to Koya Community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe (S.T.), got employment as Police Constable. A person, by name, Sarapu Suranna Dora of Gangavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District, filed a complaint before respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner belongs to Golla Caste, which falls under B.C. Category, and has got employment as Police Constable by falsely claiming that he belongs to S.T. Community. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent No.1 referred the issue to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Committee’) for enquiry. Apart from issuing notice to the petitioner, the Committee has got the issue enquired into by the Revenue Department through the Tahsildar and obtained a report from him. On receipt of the report of the Tahsildar, forwarded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram along with his own report, the Committee held enquiry commencing from 22.01.2001 to 31.05.2001. The reports of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer were supplied to the counsel for the petitioner. After perusal of the reports, the petitioner got his written statement filed before the Committee. After thorough consideration of the case, the Committee submitted its report, dated 23.06.2001 to respondent No.1. Upon receiving the said report, respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioner for personal hearing, supplied the report of the Committee and conducted hearing on 25.08.2001 during which the petitioner’s counsel advanced his arguments without producing any documentary evidence. After completing the hearing, respondent No.1 passed order, dated 15.10.2001 accepting the report of the Committee and cancelling the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner from the Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal. This order was questioned by the petitioner before respondent No.4. By its proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.06, dated 14.02.2003, respondent No.4 dismissed the appeal. Questioning the said G.O., the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri M.Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly advanced two contentions, namely, that the petitioner was denied sufficient opportunity by respondent No.4 to put forth his case and therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is in violation of principles of natural justice and that the petitioner is the adopted son of Parada Buramma and he inherited her caste. In order to deal with these contentions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant facts of the case. The petitioner was admittedly born to one Kanuboina Venkata Rao, who was the native of Rajampalem Village and married a woman, by name, Maganti Nagamani, daughter of Maganti Suryarao of Nellipudi Village. Both he and his wife belong to Golla Caste, which falls under B.C. “D” category. The only area of dispute is whether the petitioner was born to Smt. Maganti Nagamani, who is the legally wedded wife of Sri Kanuboina Venkata Rao, or to a woman, by name, Parada Buramma, who admittedly belongs to Koya Community, which is a notified S.T. Community. During the enquiry held by the Tahsildar, he has recorded the statements of several persons. They include, Kotam Abbai Dora, Parada Kannayya Dora, Sarapu Suranna Dora, all belonging to Gangavaram Village, Kanuboina Venkata Rao, the father of the petitioner, and Parada Buramma, who belongs to S.T. Community and claimed to have brought the petitioner up. The substance of the statements of all these persons is that the father of the petitioner is the native of Rajampalem Village; that he married a person, by name, Maganti Nagamani, daughter of Maganti Suryarao of Nellipudi Village; that they belong to Golla caste; that the petitioner was born to the said persons and that after his birth, on account of certain differences between the parents of the petitioner, the petitioner’s father started living with Parada Buramma at Rajampalem and they lived together for twelve years. The petitioner’s father specifically stated that during the time when he lived with Parada Buramma, he gave the petitioner to the latter’s custody for bringing him up and that the said Parada Buramma admitted the petitioner in the school with her surname. He further stated that initially, the petitioner studied in Gangavaram and later, he studied intermediate in Rampachodavaram. He also stated that after living together for 12 years, differences arose between him and Parada Buramma and she has left his company and that as Parada Buramma failed to perform the marriage of his son, he performed his son’s marriage with a girl belonging to their caste, namely, Golla, in a Village near Bhimavaram on 29.10.2000. Parada Buramma in her statement stated that initially, she was living in the company of one Gonthena Somaraju, who belongs to Kapu caste. The said Somaraju had a legally wedded wife and they also have children. She has two sons, namely, Parada Venkata Ramana, aged 25 years and Parada Satyanarayana, aged 12 years studying in Gangavaram School. She further stated that she had two daughters. According to her, when she conceived the eldest son, G.Somaraju left her company and at that time, the father of the petitioner came close to her and started living with her in a hut at Rajampalem. She lived with the petitioner’s father for 12 years and she did not beget any children through him. The petitioner was born to the legally wedded wife of Kanuboina Venkata Rao. The petitioner’s father requested her to bring up the petitioner on the promise that for her entire life, he will take care of her and accordingly, the petitioner was kept with her and was educated by lending her surname. Thereafter, she and father of the petitioner got separated and she abandoned the petitioner, left for Gangavaram and joined the company of her former companion G.Somaraju with whom she begot the second son and that she is continuing to live with the said Somaraju. Sarapu Suranna Dora, who gave the complaint, specifically stated that the father of the petitioner maintained Parada Buramma and ensured that she lends her surname to the petitioner, got recorded the same in the school registers and obtained the S.T. Community certificate in a fraudulent manner. He also stated that Parada Buramma never brought up the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement. Apart from written arguments, in his written statement, he has taken the stand that Parada Buramma is “his actual mother” and that the Gramasabha after discussing with elders, passed a resolution accepting the petitioner as the son of Parada Buramma. He therefore, maintained that the report of the Tahsildar is false and a concocted one. The written arguments filed by the petitioner were also in similar vein. The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner is the adopted son of Parada Buramma is in direct conflict with the stand taken by the petitioner before the Committee and respondent No.1. At no point of time, the petitioner has ever claimed that he was adopted by Parada Buramma. Even in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner claimed that Parada Buramma is his mother. It is never the stand of the petitioner that Parada Buramma is his adoptive mother. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be treated as the adopted son of Parada Buramma. From the statements recorded by the Tahsildar and the discussion made hereinabove, the admitted fact remains that the petitioner was born to Kanuboina Venkata Rao and Maganti Nagamani, the legally wedded wife of the said Kanuboina Venkata Rao. However, in the school registers, the petitioner’s name was described as Parada Srinivasa Rao. Even according to Parada Buramma, the petitioner was not born to her nor she has adopted him. It is her clear stand that on the request made by the father of the petitioner, she has brought him up. Even assuming that Parada Buramma had brought the petitioner up, the petitioner cannot inherit her caste. The law is well settled that the child will inherit father’s caste. There is no dispute regarding the paternity of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner admittedly belongs to Golla Caste, which falls under B.C. “D” Category. Therefore, even taking the statements of the petitioner’s father and Parada Buramma, on their face value, the petitioner can by no stretch of imagination claim that he belongs to Koya Community, which is a notified S.T.. Under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997, the burden of proof lies on the person, who claims to belong to S.C., S.T. or B.C. Community as the case may be. The petitioner never made any effort to examine his father and Parada Buramma before the Committee. Except terming the statements recorded by the Tahsildar as fabricated, the petitioner failed to substantiate the said plea. If the petitioner wanted to controvert the statements recorded by the Tahsildar, it would not have been difficult for him to produce his father and Parada Buramma before the Committee and get their statements recorded. The petitioner has miserably failed to discharge the burden cast on him to show that he belongs to S.T. Community. The Committee has referred to various documents filed by the petitioner numbering 40. Most of the documents pertain to the certificates issued by the educational institutions and also merit certificates. The Committee placed reliance on Memo No.18860/J1/90/13, dated 28.10.1995 wherein the Government has clarified that the entries in the school registers regarding caste of the student should not be taken into consideration as conclusive proof of their social status, unless the enquiries held proved their social status. Having regard to the circumstances, which led to entering the petitioner’s name in the school registers, it cannot be said that the said school certificates are conclusive proof of the social status of the petitioner. It bears repetition to note that the father of the petitioner being Golla by caste, the petitioner even assuming that he was brought up by a person belonging to S.T. community, cannot claim his social status as a person belonging to S.T. Community. From the alleged Gramasabha Resolution, which is found in the office record, it is evident that desperate attempt was made by the petitioner to show that he was born to Parada Buramma. This resolution is diametrically contrary to the statements made by the petitioner’s father and Parada Buramma themselves. The second contention of the learned counsel can be referred only to be rejected. From a perusal of the order passed by respondent No.4, it is clear that the appeal was posted for personal hearing to 23.05.2002. As the counsel for the petitioner was not present during hearing, the case was adjourned to 02.07.2002. Even on the said date, the petitioner and his counsel were absent. The case was further adjourned to 01.08.2002 as a last chance. On the said date, the counsel for the petitioner attended the personal hearing and requested for an adjournment. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 16.09.2002. On the said date, neither the petitioner nor his counsel has attended the hearing. To give one more opportunity, the case was adjourned to 02.11.2002. Even on that date, the petitioner and his counsel were not present. The case was further adjourned to 30.12.2002. On that date, the counsel and the petitioner have appeared for personal hearing and made a request for adjournment. Respondent No.4, which had given repeated opportunities to the petitioner, has not accepted the said request and passed the impugned order. From these facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any error in the conclusion drawn by the Committee and accepted by respondent No.1 that the petitioner does not belong to S.T. Community. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni