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

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 697

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Sangepu Premala, Adilabad Dist. – Appellant
Versus
The Govt.of A.P. and Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5212 of 2013
Decided on : 04-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S GOPAL RAO
For the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE

IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement of continuous residence since 26.01.1950 for Scheduled Tribe candidates is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating constitutional rights.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15(1), 16, and 21 - Reservation for Scheduled Tribes - The G.O. requiring continuous residence since 26.01.1950 was quashed as it was found to be discriminatory and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights. The petitioner was denied appointment despite evidence supporting her tribal status and residency. (Paras 6, 8)

(B) Local Candidate Definition - The definition of a local candidate was discussed, emphasizing the need for residency or educational qualifications in the local area for eligibility. (Paras 7, 8)

ORDER :

Petitioner, a resident of Ichoda Village in Adilabad District and claims to be belonging to ST-Community (Naikpod), applied for position of School Assistant (Biological Science) under DSC-2008, as per notification No.307559. She provided a Certificate of Proof of Local Scheduled Tribe candidate (Lr.No.A4/681/2001, dt. 23-05-2001) issued by the 4th respondent, confirming her residence in the Scheduled Area since 26.01.1950. Despite securing 36 marks in the test (Hall Ticket No. 19112101199), her appointment was withheld citing alleged non-genuineness of submitted certificates in Rc.No.B2/12875/2008, dated 21.12.2009. Petitioner therefore, filed O.A. No. 31 of 2010 in Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, contesting the decision and demanding appointment. While admitting the O.A., the Tribunal directed reservation of one post for her. However, memos (No. E/1835/09, dated 12.06.2010) and proceedings (No.E/859/2010, dated 25.06.2010) allegedly issued by the 3rd respondent were not communicated to her, thus denying her the opportunity to respond.

2. It is stated, the 3rd respondent requested the 4th respondent via Lr. No. E/1835/11, dated 11.05.2011 to provide a factual report on the genuineness of petitioner’s Local Tribe Candidate Certificate. In response, the 4th respondent submitted an enquiry report on 13.01.2012 highlighting that petitioner’s father Sri Peddanna, was listed in the Election Roll for the year 1975 at Sl.No.831 with House No. 4-61, when he was 38. Additionally, it noted that Sri Peddanna passed away in 2006 at the age 75. The report also mentioned that the Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI) and Village Revenue Officer (VRO) recorded statements from village elder, aged about 75 years, who confirmed Peddanna's residency in Ichoda Village. It is stated that her father resided there since 1950 until his passing away in 2006. Consequently, according to petitioner, the Certificate issued to her on 23.05.2001 vide Lr.No.A4/681/2001 was deemed genuine.

In O.A.No. 31 of 2010, the Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent to consider evidence supporting her residency in Ichoda Village by 24.07.2012. Despite this, on 14.08.2012, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings cancelling her certificate, as per proceedings No. C3/3434/2009. The petitioner's father's residency in Ichoda Village was confirmed by reports submitted to the Tribunal, including letter No. E/1835/11 dated 11-05- 2011 and enquiry report dated 13-01-2012. Despite this evidence, the 2nd respondent did not consider her case properly, resulting in an unjust denial of her appointment as a School Assistant. An appeal has been filed with the Government, seeking suspension of the proceedings pending its disposal. The petitioner seeks relief from the Court to prevent further hardship.

Petitioner seeks therefore, to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 14.08.2012 and the accompanying notification of the same date as they are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. This Court on 28.02.2013, passed the following interim order:

“On a perusal of the detailed order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the District Collector, Adilabad, 2nd respondent herein, this Court gains an impression that he was trying some how or the other to defeat the rights of the petitioner and flout the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioner was issued a caste and nativity certificate way back on 23-05-2001 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ichoda, to the effect that she belongs to Schedule Tribe (Naikpod) community and is resident of Ichoda. The District Educational Officer, Adilabad initiated steps to appoint teachers particularly in the agency areas. A District Selection Committee was constituted for that purpose. It is only the Schedule Tribes residing in the agency areas as on 26.01.1950, that are entitled to be considered for selection against the posts of teachers in tho

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top