IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Writ Petition Nos.16182, 16160, 16654, 19417 and 21590 of 2010 Writ Petition Nos.16182 of 2010: Between: Lavude Ramesh. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: W.P.Nos. 16182, 16160, 16654 of 2010: Sri Jogram Tejavath W.P.No.19417 of 2010: Sri M.R.Vara Prasad for Sri Nazeer Khan. W.P.No.21590 of 2010: None. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Siva, Government Pleader attached to the office of Additional Advocate General. This Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- These five Writ Petitions involve common issues of facts and law. Therefore, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. I have heard Sri Jogram Tejavath, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 16182, 16160, 16654 of 2010; Sri M.R.Vara Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri Nazeer Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.19417 of 2010; and Sri Siva, learned Government Pleader attached to the Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents. The petitioners claim to belong to scheduled tribe, hailing from Agency areas in Adilabad District. By notification, dated 6-12-2008 the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, invited local scheduled tribe candidates, who are qualified for appointment as School Assistants in Mathematics, Physical Science, Bio-Science, Social Studies, Language Pandits and Hindi Pandits. The petitioners were selected and they were denied appointment orders on the basis of a newspaper report that they were not the natives of the local agency areas. The petitioners approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which has allowed the O.As., filed by them with the direction to the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioners so long as the nativity certificates issued in their favour remain in operation. By the impugned orders, respondent No.4, in purported exercise of his powers under sub-Section (2) of Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short “the 1317 Fasli Act”) declared that the local Scheduled Area Tribe Certificates issued by the Tahsildars are not genuine. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, they have disputed the claim of the petitioners that they belong to the local agency areas. It is also stated that the certificates obtained by the petitioners are not genuine. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders suffer from serious illegality, apart from the same being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for short “the Rules”) and submitted that if the competent authority is of the opinion that the nativity certificates obtained by the petitioners are not genuine, he shall initiate proceedings under the said Rules and hold an enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned orders cancelling the petitioners’ certificates are not preceded by any notice and no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioners to explain their case. The learned Government Pleader opposed the above contentions and submitted that as respondent No.4 was satisfied that the certificates obtained by the petitioners are not genuine, he has cancelled the same. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, as pointed by the learned Government Pleader, the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”) does not specifically deal with the nativity and date of birth certificates. But the Rules framed under the said Act included both the nativity and date of birth certificates along side the community certificates for being dealt with. Rule 9 of the Rules, which deals with “fraudulent claims”, empowers the District Collector to refer the case to the Chairman, Scrutiny Committee, constituted under Rule 8, to hold an enquiry and send its findings to him for passing appropriate order. This Rule specifically refers to all the three certificates, viz., community, nativity and date of birth certificates. I, therefore, find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if any nativity certificate is found not genuine, the competent authority i.e., the District Collector, has to initiate proceedings and take appropriate action after following the procedure prescribed under the Rules. In the instant cases, respondent No.4 has initiated proceedings under sub-Section (2) of Section 166-B of the 1317 Fasli Act. Since the issue relating to cancellation of false community certificates is governed by the specific statutory provisions, the provisions of the 1317 Fasli Act ought not to have been invoked for cancellation of such certificates. With regard to the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, a perusal of the impugned orders does not show that prior notices were issued to the petitioners before respondent No.4 concluding that the certificates issued by the Tahsildars are found not genuine. Respondent No.4 cannot arrive at unilateral conclusion without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. On both the grounds referred to above, the impugned orders are not sustainable. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The District Collector-respondent No.2 is given liberty to initiate proceedings under the Rules, if he so desires. In the event of his choosing to initiate such proceedings, he shall ensure that the issue is referred to the Scrutiny Committee, constituted under Rule 8 of the Rules, and the said Committee completes the enquiry and submits its report and final orders are passed by him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel, the interim orders granted in these Writ Petitions are vacated and all the pending interlocutory applications are disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------- -- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:02-11-2011 MNR