IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18037 of 2008 Between: T.Satyanarayana S/o.Sreeramulu Gangavaram(V)&(M) Agency E.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare A.P Hyderabad 2 The Collector/Chairman I.T.D.A East Godavari Kakinada 3 The Project Officer I.T.D.A Rampachodavaram E.G District 4 The District Tribal Welfare OfficerRampachodavaram E.G District 5 The District Educational Officer(Agency) PMRC ITDA Rampachodavaram, E.G District 6 The District Educational Officer E.G District Kakinada .....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 writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari after calling for the records pertaining to the Judgment in O.A Noi.6881/2006 dt.16-11-2007 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble A.P Administrative Tribunal and quash the same and consequently declare that the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in Agency area though admittedly he belongs to ST Community is illegal arbitrary and viod and also violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.18037 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 16-11-007 passed in O.A.No.6881 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner ﬁled the above O.A. impugning the action of the oﬃcial respondents in not appointing him as Secondary Grade Teacher in Agency area though he belongs to S.T. community. The petitioner was not appointed as he failed to produce the original permanent caste certiﬁcate issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer concerned. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that the Selection Committee had rejected the candidature of the petitioner as he had submitted a xerox copy of the permanent caste certiﬁcate, that too two years after the selection was made in the year 2001. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the caste certiﬁcate issued prior to the relevant Act is valid and the authority ought not to have insisted upon the permanent caste certiﬁcate and that the delay occurred in issuing the certificate. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader supported the order of the Tribunal. 5. Admittedly, the notiﬁcation was issued in the year 2001 and the selection process had already begun thereafter and the petitioner has not obtained the latest caste/community certificate. The petitioner kept quiet and three years thereafter, he approached the oﬃcial respondents by ﬁling a representation dated 23-12-2004 enclosing a xerox copy of the permanent caste certiﬁcate issued by Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Gangavaram. In the instant case, the selection process was over and appointment orders had been given. Further, the original permanent caste certiﬁcate was issued in the year 2003 after the entire recruitment process was over and the vacancies notiﬁed in the year 2001 had been ﬁlled up. In this regard, the Tribunal after considering the relevant aspects had recorded the ﬁnding that a xerox copy of the permanent caste certiﬁcate was submitted nearly two years after the selection was made in the year 2001. Apart from this, mere selection by the Committee does not confer any right on the petitioner to seek the direction from this Court to compel the authority to issue appointment order. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 20-08-2008 bsc