SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(AP) 9

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
PRINCIPAL, GUNTUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, GUNTUR - Appellant
Versus
Y.PANDURANGA RAO - Respondent
Decided On : 01-18-83

The finality of the Presidential Orders and the power of the Parliament to modify the list of Scheduled Tribes.

Headnote:

Manyam Kapu - Scheduled Tribes - Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules - Articles 341, 342 empower the President to issue notification specifying the communities of Scheduled Tribes. The court examined the constitutional provisions and the finality of the Presidential Orders, and held that the list enumerated in the Schedule appended to the Act is final and cannot be added or subtracted by any court of law.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition challenged the objection raised by the Principal of Guntur Medical College, stating that the petitioner, a Manyam Kapu, cannot be treated as belonging to Scheduled Tribe and is not entitled to reserved seats for admission to the Medical College in Andhra Pradesh State.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the community of Manyam Kapu is not shown in the list of Scheduled Tribes and ruled that the list enumerated in the Schedule appended to the Act is final and cannot be added or subtracted by any court of law. The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court can inquire into the question whether a particular community is a scheduled tribe even though such community is not one of the communities enumerated in the list appended to the Constitutional (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 or the subsequent amendments thereto.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the list enumerated in the Schedule appended to the Act is final and cannot be added or subtracted by any court of law, and the court cannot enlarge the list in a given case. The court emphasized the finality of the Presidential Orders and the power of the Parliament to modify the list of Scheduled Tribes.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal, and dismissed the writ petition.

P. KODANDARAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THE Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and the State of andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Medical and Health Department, hyderabad, the respondents in the writ petition, are the appellants in this writ appeal. The writ petition No. 5317/82 is filed by one Y. Panduranga rao, a minor represented by his father and guardian Y. Chalapathi Rao, challenging the objection raised by the first respondent, Principal, Guntur medical College, Guntur stating that the petitioner who is a manyam Kapu cannot be treated as one belonging to Scheduled Tribe as "manyam Kapu" is not included as one of the communities notified as Scheduled Tribe by the president as per the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 or the subsequent amendments thereto and consequenly he is not entitled to apply for reserved seats for the selection of candidates for admission to First year M. B. B S. Course in the Medical College in Andhra Pradesh State. Our learned brother Mr. Justice Ramanujulu Naidu, by his judgment dated 14th September, 1982, allowed the writ petition following an unreported judgment of Obul Reddi, J. , (as he then was) wherein it was held that manyam Kapu was a synonymous term for "konda Kapu " and consequently respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as a candidate hailing from Scheduled tribes and declare results of admission on that basis. The State preferred the above appeal and canvassed the correctness of the judgment of Obul Reddi, J. , contending in the main that once the community of Manyam Kapu is not found in the Scheduled Castes and Schedled tribes Order (Amendment)Act 108 of 1976, no claims of any person can be considered and the court has no power to enlarge the list published by the president. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the court has got ample power and jurisdiction to see whether aparticular community, though not enumerated in the list as such comes within the moaning of the enumerated communities and for that position, he relieed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in BHA1ya RAM vs. ANIRUDH which was followed by Obul Reddi, J. , (as he then was ).

( 2 ) IT is true in catena of case of the Supreme Court on this question, this judgment struck a different note and hence we have to examine the question reviewing all the cases on the subject.

( 3 ) AS this judgment of ours affects the community in question, we have directed the respondent-State to file a countet-affidavit specifically indicating their stand on this question without simply relying upon the counter filed by the Principal, the first respondent in the case. Accordingly we have permitted the State Government to file in this appeal for the first time an additional affidavit clarifying their position in respect of this community and the writ petitioner filed a reply thereto. The stand taken by the Government in this counter-afidavit is that they have requested the Central Government to implement the judgment of Obul Reddi, J. , by including the Manyam Kapu in the list of Scheduled Tribes, but the Central government did not accede to their request and hence the Amendment Act 108 of 1976 did not include this community of Manyam Kapu in the schedule appended to the Act. Hence the plea raised by the State Government is, that once the Amendment Act does not include the community of the petitioner, no enquiry into the question whether any un-enumerated community also belongs to one of the communities enumerated in the schedule appended to Act 106 of 1976 is permissable. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that though admittedly the State Government requested the Central Government to include this community as one of the Scheduled tribes, there is no material placed before the court to show that the central Government applied their mind and specifically refused to include in the list on communities appended to Act 106 of 1976 and consequently the court s pow


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top