THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3582 of 1999 O R D E R: The three writ petitioners herein have prayed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating an enquiry as to their social status as bad in law. Sri P. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, has fairly pointed out that similar questions as were raised in this Writ Petition have been canvassed before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3225 of 1999 and that Justice Ramesh Ranganathan has repelled his contentions and concluded the issue in the following manner: “ Section 5 of Act No.16 of 1993 relates to cancellation of false community certificates. There is an inbuilt safeguard in Section 5(1) for an opportunity to be given to the person who is alleged to have obtained a false community certificate, to make a representation before an order of cancellation is passed. The allegation that a false community certificate has been obtained is required to be enquired into under Section 5(1) of the Act. It is only in cases where the competent authority is satisfied that such a false community certificate has been fraudulently obtained, is it empowered to cancel the certificate issued earlier. False caste/community certificates, enquiry into its genuineness having been provided for in Section 5(1), would bring within its ambit an enquiry into both doubtful and fraudulent certificates. Whether a community certificate granted earlier is false, or whether it has been fraudulently obtained, can only be determined after due enquiry by the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Rules. While Rule 5(i) enables the competent authority to refer doubtful claims, Rule 9 enables him to refer fraudulent claims to the scrutiny Committee. In both cases of doubtful or fraudulent community certificates, the said community certificate obtained earlier is undoubtedly false. Reading Rules 5(i) and 9(1) of the 1997 Rules in any other manner would render it ultravires Section 5 of Act No.16 of 1993. It is well settled that Rules made under the Act have to be read harmoniously with the provisions of the parent Act and as not being contrary thereto. In the absence of a challenge to the vires of the Rules, Rule 5(i) and 9, as also Forms V and VI, must be construed as pertaining to an enquiry with regards the allegation of a false community certificate having been obtained by the person concerned. While the Scrutiny Committee may have issued a notice in Form-V on the ground that the petitioners’ community certificate is doubtful it does not preclude the competent authority, if during such enquiry it comes to light that the petitioners have fraudulently obtained such certificates, to take action under Rule 9, issue a notice afresh in Form-VI, and thereafter take action, for having obtained such fraudulent community certificates, in accordance with law. Since the Rules provide for an enquiry into doubtful claims also, and in the absence of a challenge to its vires, I see no reason to shut out the enquiry on the specious plea that Act No.16 of 1993 does not empower an enquiry to be held into doubtful claims. It is necessary to bear in mind that both under Section 6 of Act No.16 of 1993 and Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules, the burden lies heavily on the person, in whose favour the community certificate was issued earlier, to establish that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribes. The first contention must, therefore, fail. With regards the contention that repeated enquiries cannot be held, it is evident from the averments in the writ affidavit that an enquiry has been caused earlier only with regards the community certificate of the first petitioner. It is not clear as to whether the second petitioner’s scheduled tribe status was subjected to enquiry hitherto. Be that as it may, no immunity in absolute terms can be sought by a person who claims that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe. 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 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 Tribe 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 obtains a false certificate, cannot plead estoppel. The principle of estoppel is inapplicable as 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). Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising 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]). Merely because an employee has continued in service for some length of time there is no prohibition in law for action to be taken against him for having secured employment on the basis of a false caste certificate, since a person who does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes should not be permitted to enjoy the fruits or benefits of reservation. Since the earlier enquiries were not under the Act or the Rules made thereunder, inasmuch as both the Act and the Rules came into force thereafter, the submission that repeated enquiries would violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is misplaced. Since the Scrutiny Committee has only asked the petitioners to appear, it is for them to do so and satisfy the Committee, by producing all relevant documents and other evidence, that they belong to the “Konda Dora” community and that the community certificates issued to them earlier are genuine. In view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the enquiry before the Scrutiny Committee has not proceeded further. Now that the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners have not found acceptance by this Court, it is open to the respondents to issue notice afresh to the petitioners herein, give them an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, take action with regards their community certificates in accordance with law.” I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge. Therefore, for those very reasons, this Writ Petition also must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 15th June 2010 ksld [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