THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.911 OF 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government
Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, for
the appellants.
Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel, representing
Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated
14.12.2022 in W.P.No.28234 of 2021 passed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court by which the writ petition preferred by
respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee) has been
allowed.
4. Facts
giving rise to filing of this writ appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent claims to be a member of Lingadhari Koya community and resident of Adilabad District. Caste certificate was issued to the father of the employee on 16.07.1982, whereas the ::2::
same was issued to the mother of the employee on 08.12.2009.
Caste certificate was issued to the employee in the year 1990 and also on 12.08.1992 and in the year 2001 as well by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the educational certificates of the employee, the caste of the employee is mentioned as 'Lingadhari Koya, ST'.
5. The employee applied for the post of Assistant Inspector in Sericulture Department in the year 2002 and was appointed on 13.08.2001. The community certificate furnished by the employee was referred for verification. The employee thereupon appeared before the Director, Tribal Culture Research and Training Institute on 01.03.2002 and submitted documents in respect of his claim.
6. The aforesaid Director forwarded his report to the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Agriculture. The employee learnt about the report of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare and challenged the same before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.532 of 2023. The Tribunal, by orders dated 22.11.2005, directed the respondents to take further action after determination ::3::
of the matter by the District Level Scrutiny Committee.
The Committee issued a notice to the employee.
7. The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare in the report dated 19.04.2007 held that Lingadhari Koyas residing in Adilabad District are not members belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The aforesaid report was questioned in W.P.No.22511 of 2007 by Lingadhari Koya Tribal Association of which the employee is a member. In the said writ petition, the report was set aside and a direction was issued to the respondent therein to continue to issue community certificates to Lingadhari Koyas of Adilabad District.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order dated 17.08.2011 held that the certificate issued to the employee is genuine.
The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare directed the District Collector to hold an enquiry. The District Collector without holding re-enquiry issued a notice to the employee on 18.04.2014.
The employee furnished his explanation on 28.04.2014.
Thereafter, the District Collector, by order dated 31.05.2014, cancelled the community certificate. The employee filed an appeal. However, no orders were passed on the appeal ::4::
preferred by the employee. The Commissioner of Agriculture, by proceedings dated 29.04.2016, cancelled the appointment of the employee. The employee challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid background, this appeal has been filed.
8. Learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the District Collector had not taken note of the order passed in W.P.No.22511 of 2007 and, therefore, the appellants be granted the liberty to pass a fresh order by taking into account the aforesaid order.
9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the employee has submitted that there is no scope for remand, as the entitlement of the members of Lingadhari Koyas of Adilibad District has already been adjudicated in W.P.No.22511 of 2007.
10. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides.
11. Admittedly, the District Collector, while cancelling the caste certificate vide order dated 31.05.2014 has not considered the ::5::
judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22511 of 2007. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the only ground for cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner is that Lingadhari Koya community living in Adilabad District do not belong to ST on the basis of their ethnographic study. The respondents have also held that the petitioner is only Lingadhari and not Koya and therefore, he is not eligible to be considered as ST. This Court, on going through the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22511 of 2007, finds that the Division Bench has considered the issue as to whether there was any caste or group by name Lingadhari and also whether they are Lingadhari Koya community and after a detailed discussion about the same, has held as under:
"It is evident from the material on record that none of the families, who claim Schedule Tribe status as 'Lingadhari Koyas' of Adilabad district, were given an opportunity of being heard before the ethnographic report, on the basis of which the impugned proceedings were issued, was finalized. While the ethnographic report, enclosed to the impugned proceedings refers to the various habits, customs and practices of the 'Lingadhari Koyas' in Khammam and Warangal districts and the so called 'Lingadharis' of Adilabad District, it is useful to note that Christoph von Furer - Haimendorf, in his book "Tribal Cohesion in the Godavari Valley", (1998 edition), observed thus:-
".......In the Adilabad district there are approximately 11,230 Koyas, but these do not form a compact group occupying a specific area but are dispersed over several parts of the district, and according to their location and main occupation are referred to by the following names:
1. Gommu Koya:- dwellers on river banks
2. Lingadari Koya:- Shaivite priests
3. Campa Koya:- basket makers
4. Musari Koya:- brass workers
5. Gutta Koya :- mountain dwellers
6. Dolo Koya :- traditional bards of Koya All the members of these subdivisions except Dola Koya style themselves as Racha Koya and Dorala sattam.
::6::
Similarly in 'Koyas of Andhra Pradesh', a publication of the Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute Tribal Welfare Department, (published in May, 2008), it is observed, under the Chapter "Social System", thus:-
"The Koya tribe is divided into several functional endogamous groups which are further divided into certain exogamous clans similar to Gond phratry system. A. Aiyappan in his report on the "socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal Tribes of the province of Madras" mentioned about the following sub-
divisions or subsects.
It is believed that all the sub-divisions became different sub-tribes.
1. Gutta Koya or Racha Koya
2. Gommu Koya or Dora Chattam
3. Kammara Koya Blacksmith or Carpenter
4. Musara Koya - Brass worker
5. Gampa Koya- Basket maker
6. Oddi Koya- Priest
7. Pettadi Koya- Beggar
8. Doli Koya - Mala (Musicians)
9. Kaka Koya - Kapu
10. Matwa Koya or Matta - Golla
11. Lingh Koya - Saivites He opined that serial No.8 to 11 are not real Koyas but plainsmen admitted into Koya tribe. The sub-divisions described by Aiyappan are only functional groups and some names are over lapping and misleading. Generally Raqcha Koyas and Gutta Koyas are two distinct sub-divisions. The Racha Koyas are generally found in plain areas where as Gutta Koyas live onhill tops. The nomenclature Dorala Chattam is referred to all Koyas and not to a particular sub-group of Gommu Koyas. Gommu means river banks and Koyas living on river banks are called Gommu Koyas. Linga Koya is a separate group who professes saivism and wears 'lingam' in their neck. They are pure vegetarians........."
The aforesaid passages have been extracted, not to re-appreciate the findings in the ethnographic report enclosed to the impugned order, but only to note that other studies have shown that Lingadhari Koyas also exist in Adilabad district of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Part-1, of the Schedule to the Constitution (Schedule Tribe) Order, 1950, enumerates the list of Schedule Tribes in Andhra Pradesh. Entry No.18 thereof read thus:
"Koya, (Doli Koya, Gutta Koya, Kammara Koya, Musara Koya, Oddi Koya, Pattidi Koya) Rajah, Rasha Koya, Lingadhari Koya, Bhine Koya, Rajkoya"
::7::
Under the Presidential order, certain Tribes have been declared as Schedule Tribes provided they hail from certain specific districts. For instance Entry -30 of part-I relating to the State of Andhra Pradesh reads thus:
"Thoti (in Adilabad, Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Khammam, Mahabubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nizamabad and Warangal districts)"
On the other hand no such limitation has been prescribed in so far Koyas, including Lingadari Koyas, are concerned. Lingadari Koyas, whichever district they belong to within the State of Andhra Pradesh, are Schedule Tribes entitled to the benefits of reservation. The benefits of reservation as Schedule Tribes cannot, therefore, be restricted only to Lingadhari Koyas of Khammam and Warangal Districts of Andhra Pradesh.
The power to exclude a Tribe, from the list of Schedule Tribes in the Presidential order, has been conferred, by Article 342 of the Constitution of India, on Parliament alone. Neither the State Legislature nor the State Government have been conferred any such powers much less the 3rd respondent herein. The impugned order, which by way of an executive fiat denies the Lingadhari Koyas of Adilabad District the benefits of reservation, is therefore arbitrary and illegal.
It is also evident that schedule tribe status has been conferred on members of the petitioner's association, as Lingadhari Koyas of Adilabad district, (ever since the Presidential order was issued in the year 1950), till the year 2006. As such they, as a class, could not have been denied the benefits of reservation as Schedule Tribes without being afforded an opportunity of being heard before the ethnographic report was prepared and finalized. While the benefits of reservation should undoubtedly not be extended to those who are not entitled thereto, it is also essential that such benefits which the Lingadhari Koyas of Adilabad district have been extended for more than four decades, is not denied to them on the basis of an ethnographic report prepared behind their back thereby denying them an opportunity of placing evidence, to the contrary, in support of their claim to be Lingadhari Koyas in Adilabad District.
The impugned proceedings dated 19.4.2007, which seeks to make a distinction between Lingadhari Koyas of Khammam and Warangal Districts and Lingadari Koyas of Adilabad district must, therefore, be and is, accordingly, quashed. The respondents shall receive applications ::8::
submitted by members of the Petitioner Association, and others similarly situated, and consider their case for grant of Schedule Tribes certificates in accordance with law, without placing reliance on the ethnographic report enclosed to the impugned order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the applications.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, in the circumstances, without costs."
8. Admittedly, the above decision has not been challenged by the authorities and it has become final and the respondents have issued ST certificates to various Lingadhari Koya community applicants of Adilabad District. In view of the same, this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are without even referring to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22511 of 2007 and are therefore unsustainable. They are accordingly set aside and the caste certificate issued to the petitioner is restored and respondent No.6 is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including back wages provided the petitioner submits proof/evidence that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the relevant period of time.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
12. The entitlement of the employee to be treated as member of Scheduled Tribe, being Lingadhari Koya of Adilabad District, had already been adjudicated in W.P.No.22511 of 2007. We, therefore, do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
13. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
::9::
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date:19.09.2023 Lrkm