The petitioner is one among many persons of her ilk who masquerade as belonging to down-trodden communities and corner the benefits made available for such communities by the Constitution and the laws obtaining false community certificates.

The petitioner, a native of Kurnool District, claims that she belongs to Kondakapu community, recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. Obviously, while admitting her, the petitioner’s father got the suffix ‘Konda’ added to her community ‘Kapu’ and obtained a school certificate, which obviously was made the basis for the petitioner obtaining a community certificate on the strength of which she has joined the Telephones Department as a Telephone Operator and climbed up in the rung to reach the stage of Technical Supervisor. When a complaint was received on 23-9-2002 from A.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Association, Kurnool about the fraudulent claim of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short “the Committee) under the provisions of A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”) and the Rules made thereunder (for short “the Rules”). The Committee held enquiry before which a joint statement of the petitioner and her brother B.Deenadayal Reddy, was recorded. In their statement they have stated that their parents migrated from Agency Area but they do not know from which place of the Agency Area they have migrated. They appear to have also stated that they never visited any Agency Area during their lifetime and that their father late B.Nagi Reddy worked as a Teacher in Kurnool Municipal High School. They have further stated that they are married to the persons of Reddy caste. After a thorough enquiry, the Committee submitted report dated 18-11-2005 to respondent No.1. The Committee has concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Kondakapu community but she belongs to Kapu (OC) caste and it has accordingly recommended cancellation of the community certificate issued in her favour. Respondent No.1 thereupon issued a show cause notice dated 29-11-2005. After receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her representation dated 15-12-2005 requesting respondent No.1 to give a month’s time to submit proof in support of her claim. After waiting for the petitioner to submit her explanation and the material, if any in support thereof, for more than four months, respondent No.1 has passed order dated 24-4-2006 cancelling the community certificate. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.3, having been dismissed, she filed the present Writ Petition.

At the hearing, Sri D.Balakishen Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced the following contentions:

(i) The petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the report of the Committee and therefore the impugned orders are vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice;

(ii) Under Rule 21 of the Rules, the community certificate issued by the competent authority prior to the commencement of the Rules should be treated as a valid certificate and therefore the respondents ought not to have cancelled the said certificate; and

(iii) The petitioner is in service for a number of years and she is on the verge of her retirement and therefore cancellation of the community certificate at this length of time will cause serious prejudice to her interests.

The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submitted that the petitioner never requested for a copy of the report of the Committee and has even failed to submit her explanation in spite of respondent No.1 waiting for receiving the explanation from her for more than four months and the petitioner has thus failed to avail the opportunity presented by respondent No.1. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to explain as to how non-supply of the enquiry report has prejudiced her interests. The learned Govern