Telangana High Court

Sangepu Premala, Adilabad Dist. vs The Govt.Of A.P.,Rep.By ... on 4 April, 2024

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

              WRIT PETITION No. 5212 OF 2013

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 those areas. The petitioner appeared in the D.S.C. and was selected. However, she was not issued any order of appointment, suspecting the genuinity of the caste and nativity certificate issued to her in the year 2001. The matter was verified through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad. After due verification from the Office of the Tahsildar and the locality, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted a report dated 23.01.2012 stating that the certificate relied upon by the petitioner is genuine. In the meanwhile, the Andhra

Pradesh Administrative Tribunal appears to have issued certain directions against the 2 nd respondent, that prompted him to initiate proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh (SCs, STs and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993. Though no complaint was received, the 2 ndrespondent referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee and on the basis of the report said to have been submitted by the Committee, he issued the impugned proceedings."

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent,

it is stated that petitioner has already filed an Appeal before the

Government challenging the same proceedings impugned in the

writ petition, with the appeal pending for consideration.

Consequently, the petitioner's decision to approach the court

before receiving a decision on the stay application is deemed

premature. Therefore, it is stated that writ petition should be

dismissed on this ground alone. The counter affidavit confirms

that petitioner indeed studied from 1st to 10th class at Z.P.P.S.

School, Ichoda, and Intermediate and Graduation at Adilabad

between 1999 and 2005. The Tahsildar of Ichoda has issued a

Local Scheduled Tribe Area Certificate to petitioner, validating

their tribal status. During DSC-2008 selection process, the

District Collector requested verification of the Scheduled Area

Local Tribe Certificates, demonstrating due diligence in ensuring

the authenticity of the candidates' credentials.

In this matter, copies of Agency Certificates issued

by the Tahsildars were forwarded to the RDOs via Office Letter

No. B7/3434/2009, dated 27.10.2009, for verification pursuant

to G.O.Ms.No.3 SW (TW EDN II) Dept, dated 10.01.2000, to

ascertain their authenticity and facilitate selection process for

the posts of 2008. Furthermore, it is highlighted that, as per the

compliance with the office instructions, the RDO of Adilabad,

through Letter No. E/1835/09, dated 10.12.2009, reported that

an inquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar of Ichoda regarding

genuineness of Local Scheduled Area Tribe Certificate issued to

petitioner and the inquiry concluded that petitioner belongs to

Naikpod caste and has been residing in Echoda village and

Mandal with her parents for approximately 40 to 50 years after

migrating from Madhapur Non-notified village of Ichoda Mandal.

However, it was found that her family members and relatives

belong to Madhapur Village, a non-notified village, rendering her

agency area certificate not genuine. Subsequently, upon

receiving reports from the RDOs, a list distinguishing genuine

and not genuine candidates was forwarded to the DEO of

Adilabad through Office Letter No. B7/3434/09, dated

18.12.2009. In this list, petitioner was listed at Sl.No.17, with

"not genuine" marked against her name. Following receipt of

inquiry reports, the DEO of Adilabad, via Letter No.

B2/12875/2008, dated 06.05.2010, forwarded a list of 31 non-

genuine candidates, including petitioner and informed that

many of them had filed OAs before the Administrative Tribunal,

resulting in interim orders reserving one post for them in the

respective category. The DEO also stated that Government

Pleader for School Education APAT had requested necessary

steps to cancel the certificates of proof of Local Scheduled Area

Tribe Candidates by the competent authorities to avoid further

legal complications.

It is stated that action was initiated in accordance

with Section 166 of the AP (TA) LR Act 1317 fasli, as per the

request of the DEO, Adilabad. The Tahsildars were instructed to

take appropriate action, while the RDOs were directed to initiate

proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section 166 B of the Act,.

Compliance with these directives was communicated through

Office Letter No. B7/3434/09, dated 21.05.2010.

Subsequently, the RDO of Adilabad through Memo No.

E/1835/09, dated 12.06.2010, called upon the candidate to

provide recorded evidence proving her residence in the Agency

Area before 26.01.1950. However, the candidate failed to

furnish any explanation or produce relevant records by

25.06.2010. Consequently, the RDO presumed the absence of

recorded evidence substantiating her residence in the agency

area, leading to cancellation of certificate issued to petitioner by

the Tahsildar, Ichoda. The DEO, Adilabad was duly informed of

these developments through the RDO's letter No. E/859/10,

dated 26.06.2010.

It is stated that after a year's lapse, the RDO of

Adilabad requested the Tahsildar, Ichoda dated 11.05.2011 to

furnish a factual report regarding genuineness of local tribe

candidate certificate issued to petitioner along with connected

records. In compliance with this request, the Tahsildar, Ichoda,

submitted the enquiry report through letter No. C/78/2012,

dated 13.01.2012. The report affirmed that petitioner belongs to

Naikpod caste and has been a resident of Ichoda village since

1950. It further corroborated that her father, Sri Peddanna, was

a longtime resident of Ichoda village, with his name appearing in

the Election roll for the year 1975. The statements of village

elders, recorded by the MRI/VRO, also attested to the

genuineness of the certificate issued to petitioner vide

Lr.No.A4/681/2001, dated 23.10.2001. It is stated that Smt.

S.Premala, D/o, Peddanna, residing in Ichoda Mandal, filed

O.A.No.31 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal (APAT), Hyderabad. The plea sought to

challenge the proceedings of the District Educational Officer,

Adilabad, dated 21.12.2009, alleging them to be illegal,

arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution of India. The relief sought was to set aside the

impugned proceedings and direct the District Educational

Officer to consider the applicant's case for appointment to the

post of School Assistant (Biological Science) against the posts

notified in the scheduled area (Agency Area) D.S.C. 2008,

appointing her with all consequential benefits. Further, during

the arguments, the APAT specifically pointed out that the RDO,

Adilabad, issued Letter No. E/859/2010, dated 26.06.2010, to

the DEO Adilabad, cancelling the Local Scheduled Tribe Area

Certificate of the applicant based on a report submitted by the

Tahsildar. However, the same Tahsildar subsequently submitted

another report to the RDO, Adilabad, vide Letter No.

C/78/2012, dated 13.01.2012, asserting the genuineness of the

applicant's certificate. Upon verification of the conflicting

statements and records, the APAT took a serious view and

directed the District Collector and RDO, Adilabad to appear

before it on 03.04.2012, along with records, as per Government

Pleader for School Education APAT's Letter No. O.A.31/2010/S.

Edn(S), dated 09.03.2012. In compliance with the directions, a

counter was filed on 29.03.2012 before the Tribunal. It was

conveyed that to ascertain the facts and prevent future

repercussions, the case would be referred to the District Level

Scrutiny Committee for verification of the genuineness of the

Local Scheduled Tribe Area Certificate issued to petitioner. The

RDO, Adilabad personally appeared before the Tribunal on

03.04.2012 and informed that case was adjourned for eight

weeks to produce a report by conducting District level Scrutiny

Committee, as per Letter No. E/1835/2008, dated 08.05.2012.

Notices were therefore, issued to petitioner to appear before the

Chairman DLSC on 28.05.2012 with documentary evidence to

establish genuineness of her certificate, which she attended and

submitted various documents, including copies of the Elector

roll for 1975 and Bonafide Certificates from 1st to 10th class,

among others. However, these documents failed to prove her

residence in the agency area since 26.01.1950. Despite being

given opportunities on 11.07.2012 and 20.07.2012 to present

evidence of her residence in the Agency Area since the specified

date, she failed to do so. Consequently, the Chairman and

members of the District Level Scrutiny Committee concluded

that she had not provided any documentary evidence to support

her claim of continuous residence in the Agency Area since

26.01.1950. As a result, the Agency Area certificate issued to

her by the Tahsildar, Ichoda, was deemed not genuine and

liable to be cancelled.

A final opportunity was extended to petitioner to

appear before the District Collector, Adilabad on 13.08.2012 at

4:00 P.M. to produce documentary evidence proving her

continuous residence since 26.01.1950 in the Agency Area.

Notice of this opportunity was issued and served to her vide

Lr.No.C3/3434/2009, dated 11.08.2012. She attended the

hearing on 13.08.2012 and submitted similar documents, which

again failed to establish her continuous residence in the Agency

Area since the specified date.

According to this respondent, the burden of proof

lies with the candidate as per Rule 6 of AP (SC/ST's & BC

Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth

Certificate Rules, 1977 and petitioner failed to substantiate her

continuous residence in the scheduled area since 26.01.1950.

Hence, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Heard Sri S. Gopal Rao, learned counsel for

petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Social

Welfare.

6. Through the impugned order, the local status

certificate of petitioner was cancelled on the ground that she

failed to produce the documentary evidence to prove her

continuous residence in Agency Area since 26.01.1950 till daste

as per G.O.Ms.NO. 3, dated 10.01.2000. It is important to note

here that in Chebrolu Leela Prasad v. State of Andhra

Pradesh 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

" The G.O. in question requires candidate or the parents to resident in the area continuously w.e.f. 26.01.1950. There is no rhyme or reason to require continuous residence for last 50 years or more. It overlooks the rights of various other persons who might have settled decades together in the area in question. It is discriminatory vis- à-vis to the Scheduled Tribes also settled in the area and it has no purpose to be achieved and imposes restriction which was not even

(2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 401

provided in the Presidential Order issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India with respect to residential or educational requirements. Thus, it does not lay down valid conditions. The same is fixed in highly unreasonable and arbitrary manner and limits zone of consideration to miniscule where an opportunity for public employment has to be afforded to all concerned with reasonable rights.

Public employment envisages opportunity to all, who have been provided reservation is by way of exception to do the compensatory jobs. The condition above deprives the Scheduled Tribes who are permanent residents of the areas and have settled after the said cut-off date. Thus, the classification created is illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary. Making such a provision that a person should be a resident on or before 26.01.1950 to date is discriminatory and has the effect of exceeding the purpose of providing the reservation. It defeats the rights of other similar tribes who might have settled after 26.01.1950 in the area taken care of in the Presidential Order under Article 371-D. It is violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 16 of the Constitution and has no rationale with the purpose sought to be achieved. It creates a class within a class, and the classification made failed to qualify the parameters of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution."

The Judgment further observed that G.O.Ms.No.3 of

2000 providing 100% reservation is not permissible under the

Constitution, the outer limit is 50% as specified in Indra

Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217); the

notification in question cannot be treated as classification made

under Article 16(1). Once the reservation has been provided to

Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4), no such power can be

exercised under Article 16(1). The notification is violative of

Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution; the conditions of

eligibility in the notification with a cut-off date i.e. 26.01.1950 to

avail the benefits of reservation, is unreasonable and arbitrary

one and thus quashed the G.O.

7. On the other hand, local candidate is defined in

para 7 of the Presidential Order called the Andhra Pradesh

Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and

Regulatoin of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975.

" Local Candidate: (1) A candidate for direct recruitment to any post shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area.

(a) In cases where a minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for recruitment to the post.

(i) If he has studied in an educational institution or educational institutions in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination; or

(ii) Where during the whole or any part of the four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination he has not studied in any educational institutions, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the qualifying examination in which he appeared or as the case may be, first appeared.

(b) In cases where no minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for recruitment to the post, ie he has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date on which the post is notified for recruitment."

8. Petitioner is stated to have studied from 1st to 10th

class at Z.P.P.S. School, Ichoda and Intermediate and

Graduation at Adilabad between 1999 and 2005 and the said

fact was also confirmed by the counter-affidavit. Hence, she

meets the requirement of Regulation 7 of 1975 Order. In view of

the same and since G.O.Ms.No.3 is quashed, the impugned

order is liable to be set aside.

9. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed and the order

dated 14.08.2012 of the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. No

costs.

10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.