IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.26064 of 2000 THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN Between: Mata Jayasree, D/o. Jaya Kumar, Age: 25 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Thimpauram Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, presently staying at Peddapuram, East Godavari District. … Petitioner And The Registrar, Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District, and another. … Respondents Order: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not returning the petitioner’s original cast certificate and issuing memo dated 24-11-2000 rejecting to return the same as arbitrary and illegal. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that petitioner belongs to ‘Valmiki’ community, a notified Scheduled Tribe and the Mandal Revenue Officer, after conducting enquiry, issued caste certificate in her favour. It is stated that after completing B.Sc., petitioner had appeared for common entrance test for admission into M.Sc. (Bio Technology) claiming a seat in the Scheduled Tribe category and she had submitted the caste certificate issued to her by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala to the second respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that as she secured a job in a bank and the original caste certificate was required to be produced, she made an application to the second respondent requesting him to issue her original caste certificate which was submitted at the time of admission in the aforesaid course. As there was no response, she filed W.P.No.15912 of 2000 before this court seeking directions to issue the caste certificate submitted by her and the same was disposed of directing the second respondent to consider her application and dispose it of. Her grievance is that the impugned proceedings have been issued rejecting to return the caste certificate on the ground that it is required for audit purpose. 4. Even though the Writ Petition is of the year 2000, no counter affidavit has been filed and there is also no representation on behalf of the respondents. 5. Petitioner has submitted the original caste certificate at the time of admission and completed the course during the academic years 1997-99. If respondents need the caste certificate for any purpose, they can retain the Xerox copy of the same, but however, there is no reason for not returning the original certificate. 6. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to return the original caste certificate of the petitioner by taking her endorsement and retain a photocopy of the same. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. June 21, 2007 MRR