Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
A. Rukmani, BSNL, Tirupathi - Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Social Welfare Dept, Hyderabad & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 535 of 2008
Decided On : 04-05-2021
CASTE CERTIFICATE - FRAUDULENT OBTAINING - CANCELLATION - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - BURDEN OF PROOF - ESTOPPEL - SERVICE BENEFITS - RETIREMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought a mandamus to declare the cancellation of her caste certificate as illegal and arbitrary. She claimed that she had obtained the certificate in 1977, mentioning her caste as 'Achary' without specifying her community or social status. The Tahsildar, after an inquiry, issued a certificate stating that she belonged to the Achary (Kammara) caste, recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner argued that she was unaware of the classification of her caste as ST and that the revenue authorities were responsible for the error. She also denied availing any service benefits under the ST category during her 27 years of service in BSNL.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's contention that she was unaware of her caste being classified as ST was not credible. Evidence showed that she had used the certificate to secure a job and promotion under the ST quota. The court also noted that she had not informed the authorities about the alleged mistake in the certificate and had continued to enjoy the benefits of the ST status. The court held that the petitioner had fraudulently obtained the caste certificate and that the cancellation of the certificate was justified.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner fraudulently obtained the caste certificate by misrepresenting facts. 2. Whether the cancellation of the caste certificate was illegal and arbitrary. 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to service benefits under the ST category.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's conduct in obtaining the caste certificate was highly questionable and doubtful. She had used the certificate to secure a job and promotion under the ST quota and had not informed the authorities about the alleged mistake in the certificate. This indicated that she had fraudulently obtained the certificate. 2. The court held that the cancellation of the caste certificate was justified. The petitioner had obtained the certificate by misrepresentation and had used it to gain undue benefits. The cancellation was necessary to prevent further misuse of the certificate and to uphold the integrity of the caste certificate system. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to service benefits under the ST category. She had obtained the caste certificate fraudulently and had not been recognized as a member of the ST community. Therefore, she was not eligible for the benefits reserved for ST candidates.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the cancellation of the petitioner's caste certificate was valid and that she was not entitled to service benefits under the ST category.
JUDGMENT
U Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioner seeks for a mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.140, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 26.12.2007 issued by the 1st respondent confirming the proceedings in Roc.NoC3/1972/2002 dated 31.10.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent finding that the petitioner has obtained caste certificate No.4340/77 dated 22.10.1977 by fraudulent means and misrepresenting the facts to the officers concerned, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the aforesaid G.O. and the proceedings issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and pass such other orders as deemed fit.
2. The petitioner's case is thus:
b) The petitioner's fore-fathers resided in Visakhapatnam and they migrated to Chittoor District about 70 years back i.e., before her birth and settled down in Nagari Village, Chittor District. In Rayalaseema region, the Kammara caste male persons suffix their names with Achary and they are called as Acharies. In the school records of the petitioner including in the transfer certificate issued by the S.G.N.zilla Parishad High School, Nagari, Chittoor District, wherein the petitioner studied 10th class, her caste is mentioned as 'Achary'.
c) In the year 1991, the petitioner applied to the Telecom Department (now renamed as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)) for appointment to the post of Telecom Assistant. The petitioner specifically mentioned her caste as 'Achary' (Kammara) in the application and enclosed her transfer certificate issued by the school authority in which her caste is mentioned as 'Achary'. She was selected and appointed as Telecom Assistant on 20.06.1981 basing on her brilliant academic career. She was not informed by the Department at any point of time whether she was selected under General category or ST category to the said post. Though the petitioner put up more than 27 years of service in BSNL, yet to her knowledge, she has never availed any service benefits under ST category till date.
d) While so, on a representation said to have been submitted by the Federation of All India SC/ST Telecom Employees, Tirupati branch, in the year 2002 requesting the 3rd respondent to investigate into the caste of the petitioner and to take necessary action, the 3rd respondent appears to have referred the matter to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent appears to have requested the R.D.O., Chittoor, to submit a report and the R.D.O., Chittoor appears to have submitted a report to the 2nd respondent falsely stating as if the petitioner obtained Kammara (ST) caste certificate No.4340/77 dated 22.10.1977 by fraudulent means. Then, the 2nd respondent has referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) and the matter was inquired into. The DLSC held that since the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate that she belonged to ST category and therefore, she was not ST Kammara but she belonged to Kammara and that the petitioner obtained Kammara (ST) caste certificate by fraudulent means and misrepresenting the facts to the officers concerned and hence, the caste certificate issued to the petitioner as 'Kammara' (ST) is liable to be cancelled. The said finding of the DLSC is factually incorrect. The 2nd respondent has mechanically accepted the recommendations of the DLSC and issued orders vide proceedings in Roc.No.C3/1972/2002 dated 31.10.2004 cancelling the caste certificat
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
