IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 26931 of 1999 Between: J. Wilson Herold, S/o. J.Kristapher, All India Radio, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2 The Station Director, All India Radio, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. .....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 appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings Ref. C5/7639/97(show cause notice), dt. 16-4-99 is arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India, and consequently declare that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community (Mala) in view of the enquiries already held by the 1st respondnet and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.DASARI VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.26931 OF 1999 ORDER: The order impugned in this Writ Petition is a show- cause notice dated 16.04.1999 whereby the petitioner, who claims to belong to the Scheduled Caste, was called upon to show cause as to why the bogus caste certiﬁcate obtained by him should not be cancelled and action not be taken against him under Sections 10, 11(1), 11(2), 11(3) and 12 (1) of Act 16/1993 read with the 1997 Rules. After submitting his reply thereto, the petitioner has approached this Court and, in view of the interim orders passed, no further action has been taken by the authorities concerned with regards the caste certificate. The petitioner’s grievance in this Writ Petition is that since his caste status has already been determined, repeated enquiries into his caste status was causing him undue harassment and was in violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, on the other hand, would point out that the very name of the petitioner would indicate that he professes Christianity as a religion and, as such, he would automatically be disentitled for the beneﬁts to which the Scheduled castes are entitled to and that, at best, he would be entitled to be considered as BC-C candidate if he is a converted Scheduled Caste Christian. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that no person can claim the beneﬁt of scheduled caste status unless he genuinely belongs to the Scheduled Caste as by securing such an illegal beneﬁt a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate would be denied appointment in the process. 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[1]). 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 [2]; Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development[3]). 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[4]; 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[5]). It must be borne in mind that what is impugned in this Writ Petition is a show-cause notice. It is only if the show- cause notice is passed by an authority who is not competent to do so, or the said show-cause notice is without jurisdiction, would this Court be justiﬁed in interfering with the show-cause notice, for all other grounds can well be taken in the reply to the show-cause notice itself. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the show-cause notice is neither questioned on the ground that it is passed by an incompetent authority nor that it is without jurisdiction. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the show-cause notice. The challenge to the show-cause notice must fail. The Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that, in view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order passed earlier does not survive. No costs. ___________ 26-08-2008 GS [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