IMPORTANT POINT
Administrative inaction in issuing caste certificates cannot disadvantage meritorious candidates; courts may direct appointments or create supernumerary posts to ensure fairness.

ORDER :

K Manmadha Raoo, J.

This writ petition is filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“…..to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the 2 respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner vide Proceedings Rc.No.819/R&T/Admn-I/2017, dated 19.11.2019 in not selecting and appointing thee petitioner as SCTSI(Civil) by treating thee petitioner as belongs to OC category despite thee petitioner belongs to BC-E as certified by the Tahsildar, Podili Mandal and selecting the person with lesser merit under BC-E category in Zone-III, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to rules and violative of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to select the petitioner as SCTSI(Civil) in terms of his merit under BC-E category in Zone-III basing on the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Podili pursuant to the orders of Hon’ble High Court in WP No.26758 of 2017 dated 29.8.2017 and to pass…”

2. Heard Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel representing Sri G.Suryam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri T.Benarjee, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent issued Notification vide Rc.No.208/R&T/ Rect.1/2016, dated 17.9.2016 for filling up the posts of SCTSI(Civil) and other Posts. As the petitioner belongs to Muslim religion, he intended to claim the reservation under BC-E category as provided under the rules. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted Online application for the post of SCTSI (Civil) in pursuance of the Notification dated 17.9.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel further submits that as the petitioner belongs to BC-E Community, he made an application dated 24.03.2017 to the Tahsildar, Podili, for issuance of BC-E Certificate. As the certificate was not given by the concerned Tahsildar, the claim of the petitioner to treat him as BC-E category could not be entertained in the absence of any caste certificate, and as such, he was treated as belongs to OC category basing on the Online application. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for preliminary and main examinations and he secured 241 marks out of 400 marks and the cut off marks for BC-E category is 240 marks. Learned counsel further submits that, questioning the action on the part of the Tahsildar, in not issuing the caste certificate, the petitioner was filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12633 of 2017 before this Court and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.4.2017 and directed the Tahsildar to consider the application of the petitioner. However, the Tahsildar failed to consider the same. Accordingly, the petitioner again preferred W.P.No.26758 of 2017 before this Court seeking for the same relief. Consequently, this Court, vide order, dated 29.08.2017 in WPMP No.33214 of 2017 in WP No.26758 of 2017 directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the application of the petitioner and pass necessary orders. In pursuance of the said orders, the Tahsildar issued Caste Certificate on 27.04.2018 certifying the petitioner as belongs to BC-E category. Learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner submitted an application dated 02.01.2019 to the 2nd respondent to consider his candidature as BC-E, but he failed to do so. Learned counsel mainly contended that, though there were administrative lapses on the part of the Revenue authorities in issuing the certificate of Caste, the same resulted into non issuance of Caste certificate at the time of making an application to the recruitment notification for the post of SCTSI. On account of the same, the petitioner was treated erroneously as belongs to OC category instead of BC-E category. He submits that as the petitioner was construed as OC category in the absence