Sahu Pavan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4576 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

            WRIT APPEAL Nos. 713, 714 and 715 of 2021
                      (Proceedings through physical mode)
W.A. No.713 of 2021

Sahu Preethi S/o. Sahu Jayasen,
Aged about 19 years,
Occ: Student, r/o.D.No.1-166,
Karji Street, Manikyapuram,
Kaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P.                    .. Appellant

        Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
Guntur District, A.P. and others.                           .. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. G. Tuhin Kumar

Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 & 6 : Mr. T.N.M. Ranga Rao, G.P. for Social Welfare

Counsel for respondent No.5 : Ms S. Pranathi, Standing Counsel W.A. No.714 of 2021

Abhishek Sahu S/o. Jadobo Sahu, Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student, r/o. D.No.1-10, Kokkiliputtuga, Kanchili Mandal, Srikakulam District A.P. .. Appellant

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District, A.P. and others. .. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. G. Tuhin Kumar

Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 & 6 : Mr. T.N.M. Ranga Rao, G.P. for Social Welfare

Counsel for respondent No.5 : Ms S. Pranathi, Standing Counsel W.A. No.715 of 2021

Sahu Pavan S/o. Sahu Biro, Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student, r/o.D.No.1-45, Kokkiliputtuga, Kanchili Mandal, Srikakulam District, A.P. .. Appellant

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District, A.P. and others. .. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. G. Tuhin Kumar

Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 & 6 : Mr. T.N.M. Ranga Rao, G.P. for Social Welfare

Counsel for respondent No.5 : Ms S. Pranathi, Standing Counsel

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT Dt: 11.11.2021 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Since the issue involved in all these three appeals is one and the

same they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These three writ appeals have been preferred against the interim

orders passed by the learned single Judge refusing to allow the

appellants/writ petitioners to get admitted in the Engineering Course in

reserved quota seats.

3. The appellants/writ petitioners claim to be belonging to Bentho-

Oriya Scheduled Tribe community. They applied for the reserved quota

seats on the strength of certificates issued to their respective fathers.

Since the issue concerning caste status of the appellants/writ petitioners

is pending enquiry, the learned single Judge deemed it appropriate not

to allow any interim relief. However, it is brought to our notice that in

similar cases, interim relief has been granted by another Bench.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that

the enquiry in respect of caste status of Bentho-Oriya Scheduled Tribe

is pending in respect of the whole community, and is not against the

appellants/writ petitioners or their respective fathers individually.

Therefore, under Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community,

Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for short "the Rules

1997"), the appellants/writ petitioners could have been provisionally

admitted on the information submitted by the competent authority.

5. Having perused the material papers, it does not appear that the

appellants/writ petitioners have approached the competent authority,

invoking Rule 19 of the Rules 1997.

6. Therefore, all the three writ appeals are disposed of with a

direction that if the appellants/writ petitioners approach the appropriate

authority invoking Rule 19 of the Rules 1997, within a period of one

week from today, the said authority shall proceed within the limits of

jurisdiction provided under Rule 19 of the Rules 1997 to inform the

Principal of the concerned Institution, and if information is sent by the

competent authority to the Principal, the appellants/writ petitioners may

be allowed provisional admission, which shall be subject to the final

outcome of the writ petitions and the appellants/writ petitioners shall

not claim any equities in their favour. The admission, pursuant to the

information under Rule 19 of the Rules 1997, shall remain restricted to

the scope of the said Rule.

7. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

GM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT APPEAL Nos. 713, 714 and 715 of 2021 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Dt: 11.11.2021

GM