Telangana High Court

B.Thirupathamma vs The Collector And District Magistrate on 3 June, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
           WRIT PETITION No.37582 OF 2014


ORDER:

Heard Mr. J. Nagaraja Rao, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf

of respondent No.1, learned Asst. Government Pleader

for Forests, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social

Welfare, appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

"to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc. C3/4580/2012-22 dated 14-01-2014 including the appended notification of even number and date issued by the District Collector are invalid and unconstitutional, arbitrary, opposed to the principles of natural justice, void ab initio besides violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the judgment in W. P. No. 27351/2013 dated 20.09.2013 as well as Rev W. P. M. P. No. 45648/2013 dated 27.12.2013 R/w Judgment in

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

SLP No. 8206 of 2014 dated 08.08.2014 and consequently hold that the Agency Area Certificate possessed by the petitioner is perfectly valid and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post to which she was selected i.e. Forest Beat Officer/Assistant Beat Officer as the case may be pursuant to the Notification No.44410/2009 dt 26-03- 2012 with all consequential benefits".

PERUSED THE RECORD :

3. The learned counsel places reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 08.08.2014

which reads as under:

"Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/12/2013 in RWPMP No.45648/2013 in WP No. 27351/2013, 20/09/2013 in W.P. No. 27351/2013 passed by the then High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad".

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the

respondents in particular para Nos.22, 23 and 24 are

extracted hereunder:

22. In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the Local Scheduled Area Candidate Certificate is different from the Nativity Certificate which was issued under

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

Act (Act No.16 of 1993). The main difference between these two certificates are that (1) the Nativity Certificate can be granted to the candidate who are residing in the local area for more than 7 years, but in case of Local Scheduled Area Candidate Certificate can only be granted to the Candidate who are showing their continuous residence in the Scheduled Area since 26-01-1950 to till date. The former one has to be given to any Candidate who has applied for and the later can only be given to the Scheduled Tribe Candidate who is continuously residing in the Scheduled Areas since 26-01-1950.

23. Further, it is respectfully submitted that the Direct Recruitment process was started during the year 2012 and completed in all the Districts and selected candidates were appointed. But whereas in Adilabad District the process filling up of the above posts have not been completed so far, owing to the non-finalization of the genuinuty of agency area certificates. As such even the posts which are to be filled up with other than scheduled area candidates are also held up and the candidates with merit marks under open competition are also depriving of their employment since more than (2) years. Further,

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

it is respectfully submitted that the scheduled area candidates also have their scope for selection against the (6) open competition posts notified in the notification as per their merit.

24. It is also submitted that, there is other alternative remedy available in the A.P. SCs, ST and B.Cs Regulation of issue of Community Certificate Act, 16/1993, that if the District Administration finds fault in determining the question regarding the Local Schedule Tribal Candidate if any candidate aggrieved by the order can seek redressal from the Government by filing Appeal or Revision as prescribed in the AP SCs, ST and BCs Regulation of issue of Community Certificate Act, 16/1993".

5. The impugned order vide Proc. No.C3/4580/2012-

22, dated 14.01.2014 and the relevant portion at para

No.1 of the said order reads as under:

"The Nodal Officer for Selection Committee & Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad has sent the copies of the Agency Area Certificates issued by the Tahsildar to the candidates selected for Forest Beat Officers/Assistant Beat Officers and Bungalow watchers in Adilabad circle and requested the District Collector, Adialabad for re- verification and to take decision on the

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

genuineness of the certificates submitted by the candidates as per G.O.Ms.No.3 Social Welfare (T.W.EDN.11) Department, Dated 10.01.2000....

In compliance to the notice, Bairneni Thirupathamma D/o. Buchaiah R/o. Devapur village of kasipet mandal has attended the hearing on 17.04.2013 before the District Collector, Adilabad and submitted the same documents which were submitted before the Committee hearings held on 27.06.2012 and 13.09.2012. On perusal of the documents, it is noted that the candidate has failed to prove continuous residence in Agency Area since 26.01.1950 to till date as per G.O.Ms.No.3 SW (T.W.EDN.II) Department, dated 10.01.2000. But the candidate has failed to substantiate his continuous residence in scheduled area since 26.1.1950 to till date.

In view of the above, circumstances and in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 2 of G.O.Ms.No.58 SW (J) Dept. Dt. 12.05.1997 read with (5) 1 of AP SCs., ST and BCs Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 16/93, the false Local Scheduled Tribe Area Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kasipet vide RC. No. E/4265/2009, dated 30.01.2009 to Bairneni Thirupathamma D/o. Buchaiah, R/o. Devapur

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

Village of Kasipet Mandal is hereby cancelled and hereby declare that Bairneni Thirupathamma D/o. Buchaiah, R/o. Devapur Village of Kasipet Mandal does not belong to Agency Area".

6. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the

averments made in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner

in support of the present writ petition, is as under :

a) It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner

belongs to Naikpod and native of Dubbugudem village of

Kasipetmandal which is a notified agency area in Adilabad

District and the petitioner had applied for Certificate of

Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate as per the

procedure laid down for this purpose. Thereafter in

accordance with the rules, the petitioner was given

Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate in the year

2009.

b) Pursuant to the Notification Rc. No. 44410/2009/A-2(II)

dated 26.03.2012 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of

Forests, Hyderabad, the petitioner had applied for the post of

Forest Beat Officer/Assistant Beat Officer. Thereafter, the

petitioner's name was included in the provisional merit/select

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

list, but the petitioner was not given with any appointment

order and was informed that the petitioner certificate was

referred to District Level Scrutiny Community (for short DLSC)

for re-verification though there was no provision for

re-verification.

c) Subsequently, the petitioner was called for certificate

verification by the DSLC vide orders dated 20.07.2012 and

03.09.2013 and accordingly, the petitioner had furnished all

the necessary documents. Moreover, the petitioner was called

repeatedly by the DLSC for re-verification of the Agency Area

Certificate and thereafter, cancelled the petitioner's local

agency area certificate as false, vide Proc. C3/4580/2012-22

dated 14.01.2014 without giving any notice or any

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The said

proceedings canceling the local agency area certificate is

invalid. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the present Writ

Petition is filed.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

7. The Judgment of the Apex Court dated 22.04.2020

in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Others Vs. State of

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in (2021) 11 SCC

401 and in particular, paras 142, 143, 147 and 148,

read as under :

"142. It has been provided in the notification that the local scheduled tribe's candidates have been defined to be scheduled tribes notified as under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, if the candidates of scheduled tribes themselves or their parents have been continuously residing in the scheduled areas of the district in which they are residing from the date i.e., 26th January 1950.

143. The condition of continuously residing in the district is ex facie arbitrary. Article 15(1) of the Constitution provides that State shall not discriminate inter alia on the ground of place of birth, however, under Article 15(4), it is provided that reservation can be made in favour of citizens of backward classes i.e. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and special provision can be carved out for their advancement. It is also open to prescribe for conditions of eligibility on the ground of residence in a particular area as well as on the educational requirements but that cannot be fixed arbitrarily and irrationally.

147. The G.O. in question requires candidate or the parents to reside in the area continuously w.e.f. 26.1.1950 to date. There is no rhyme or reason to

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

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 provided in the Presidential Order issued under Article 371D 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.

148. 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 26th January 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 26th January 1950 in the area taken care of in the Presidential Order under Article 371-D. It is

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

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 of India.

8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case and the averments made in

the counter affidavit at Paras 22 to 24 (referred to and

extracted above) and duly taking into consideration the

observations of the Apex Court reported in (2021) 11

SCC 401, dt. 22.04.2020 in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao &

Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others at Paras

142, 143, 147 and 148 (referred to and extracted

above), this Court opines that the 1st Respondent is

directed to reconsider the impugned proceedings

No.C3/4580/2012-22, dated 14.01.2014 in the light of

the observations of the Apex Court referred to and

extracted above duly considering the entire material on

record within a period of four (4) weeks from the date

of receipt of the copy of the order by giving due notice

and opportunity to the Petitioner and all concerned in

WP_37582_2014 SNJ

conformity with the principles of natural justice and

pass appropriate reasoned orders duly taking a decision

in the matter, and duly communicate the decision to the

petitioner.