Customary adoption into a Scheduled Tribe community is valid and confers tribal status when supported by evidence of cultural assimilation, overriding arguments based on the technical inapplicability of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and the absence of a registered adoption deed.

ORDER :

Nyapathy Vijay, J.

The present writ petition is filed questioning the cancellation of Caste Certificate of the Petitioner vide proceedings R.Dis.No.C5/437/M/2002 dated 20.10.2005, as confirmed by Respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.197, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 01.11.2008 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows:

The Biological parents of Petitioner Bazanthri Venkatesu and Bala Munemma were residents of Ukkusilavandla, H/o Kallurupalle village. When the Petitioner was aged about three (3) years, the biological parents gave the Petitioner in adoption to Bukke Venkata Naik @ Badde Naik and his wife Balamma of ‘Sugali Tribe’, which is notified as ‘Scheduled Tribe Community’. After adoption, the Petitioner had lived with his adopted parents in Sugali Thanda and is conversant with the customs and Sugali language. The Petitioner pursued graduation by studying in Scheduled Tribe Boys hostel. On the basis of the educational qualifications, the Petitioner was employed as Conductor in APSRTC.

3. While so, one Girijan Seva Sangam submitted a petition on 24.05.2002 to Respondent No.2-District Collector alleging that the Petitioner belongs to ‘Mangali’ caste (B.C. Community) and has secured a job as Conductor in APSRTC by claiming to be belonging to the Sugali Scheduled Tribe community. On the basis of the complaint, the District Level Committee, Cuddapah had conducted an enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry, Respondent No.2-the District Collector cancelled the caste certificate of the Petitioner vide impugned proceedings R.Dis.No.C5/437/M/2002 dated 20.10.2005. The same was confirmed by the State Government vide impugned G.O.Ms.No.197, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 01.11.2008. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.4, it is stated that though the Petitioner was given in adoption to tribal parents, the original status of the petitioner remains unchanged. It is further stated that the Petitioner had married a woman belonging to ‘Mangali’ community and the entries of his children in the school records were shown as ‘Mangali”. The plea of the Petitioner that he had suffered all the dis-advantages of ‘Sugali’ community on account of adoption was denied and that the cancellation orders were passed after going through the enquiry report. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the learned Government Pleader furnished a scanned copy of the file.

5. Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

6. The impugned order was passed by the District Collector pursuant to a petition submitted by the President of Girijana Seva Sangam on 24.05.2002 alleging that the Petitioner had originally belonged to ‘Mangali’(B.C. Community) and had secured a job as Conductor in ‘Sugali’ Scheduled Tribe quota. On receipt of the complaint, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayachoti had furnished a Caste Certificate dated 30.10.1990 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet, Nativity Certificate and first page of service register of the Petitioner.

7. After receipt of all these documents, the issue was referred to Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet vide Ref.C5/437/M/02 dated 12.06.2002 for comprehensive report. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet submitted his report vide Ref.C/234/2003 dated 15.05.2004 to Respondent No.2 in favour of the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the Report reads as under:

'My enquiry reveals that, the individual was born on 20.06.1964. His original name was B.Ramanjane