//
you're reading...
CHEQUE BOUNS CASE

The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on the strength of the Caste certificate issued in his favour by respondent No.3 as belonging to Madiga (SC) community. When complaints were received that he belongs to Golla caste, which is a backward caste, respondent No.2 has referred the complaints to the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Ananthapur (for short ‘the Committee’).This Court in B.Suseelamma V. Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool1 has shown serious concern over growing instances of gross misuse of community certificates and securing seats in educational institutions and public employment. It is apt to reproduce the relevant part of its observations herein below: “…..It is a matter of grave concern that scores of people who belong to upper strata of the society have been indulging in gross misuse of the community certificates obtained by playing fraud, depriving the people belonging to the oppressed and under-privileged communities of their due share of reservation in educational institutions and public employment. In the considered opinion of this court, such people do not deserve any sympathies whatsoever. Not only that the fake community certificates obtained by the persons making fraudulent claims should be cancelled, they have to be severely punished by handing-out appropriate punishment in terms of Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner, thanks to the bogus community certificate and the interim orders obtained by her after the cancellation of the community certificate by respondent No.1, has successfully secured and managed to continue in the employment, for more than three decades. Thus far, and no further. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate prosecution forthwith against the petitioner in terms of Section10 of the Act. Respondent No.2 is directed to initiate appropriate steps against the petitioner for withdrawal of the benefits secured by her and also recovery of such benefits in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 11 of the Act.” In the light of the above facts, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and hence, the same is dismissed. Respondent No.2 is directed to pursue the criminal case and see that the same is concluded expeditiously, apart from ensuring that appropriate action is initiated immediately for withdrawal of the benefits secured by him and recovery of such benefits in accordance with sub- sections (1) and (3) of Section 11 of the Act. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.43013 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

Different Castes and reservations available in...

Different Castes and reservations available in India. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.34573 of 2011

03.01.2012

G.Durga Prasad

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd by
Its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (CV.I)
Department, Hyderabad and two others

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Rambhoopal Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Social Welfare

?CITATIONS:
2011(5) Alt 443

ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.67,
dated 02.12.2011, whereby respondent No.1 has confirmed order, dated 07.10.2000
of respondent No.2, cancelling the petitioner’s Caste certificate, dated
09.02.1990, issued by respondent No.3.
The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on the strength of the
Caste certificate issued in his favour by respondent No.3 as belonging to Madiga
(SC) community. When complaints were received that he belongs to Golla caste,
which is a backward caste, respondent No.2 has referred the complaints to the
District Level Scrutiny Committee, Ananthapur (for short ‘the Committee’). The
petitioner appeared before the Committee on 18.09.2000 and produced the
following documents:
“1. Copy of Message Form dated 08.08.1993, in respect of Recruitment of Police
Constables.
2. Copy of T.C. bearing Serial No.02651.
3. Copy of T.C. bearing Serial No.93
4. Copy of Residence Certificate bearing No.143, dated 27.01.1993
5. Copy of Caste Certificate issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer,
Hindupur, issued on 09.02.1990
6. Copy of proceedings of DO.No.851/93/C. No.(7124/ K:1/92), dated 15.08.1993.”

The Committee has examined the documentary evidence produced by the
petitioner and also recorded the statements of the paternal aunt, brothers,
brother-in-law of the petitioner and the Senior Manager of the employer in which
the petitioner’s brother was working as Winder. On completion of the enquiry,
the Committee has submitted its report holding that the petitioner does not
belong to Madiga (SC) community and that he belongs to Yadava (Golla) community
(BC). Considering the report of the Committee, respondent No.2 has passed a
detailed order vide his proceedings No.Rc.MC:3/1477/99, dated 07.10.2000,
declaring that the petitioner does not belong to Madiga (SC) community and
cancelled the Caste certificate obtained by the petitioner as Madiga (SC)
community. Respondent No.2 also directed respondent No.3 to launch prosecution
against the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Feeling
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 19.02.2001,
before respondent No.1. The petitioner secured an interim order of stay and on
the strength of the said interim order, he continued in his employment as Police
Constable. After adjourning the case on as many as 56 times, respondent No.1 has
eventually dismissed the appeal by the impugned G.O. issued on 02.12.2011.
Assailing these two orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner filed the
present Writ Petition.
At the hearing, Sri P.Rambhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, has strenuously contended that the petitioner is denied a reasonable
opportunity of being heard by respondent No.1 and therefore, the impugned G.O.
is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel made a fervent request that one final
opportunity may be given to the petitioner to prove that he belongs to Madiga
(SC) community.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner with reference to the material on record.
A perusal of the impugned G.O. shows that the case was posted for hearing
by respondent No.1 on 56 occasions, out of which, the petitioner appeared only
on three occasions. On 23.03.2011, the petitioner’s father-in-law by name
Brahmananda Reddy, appeared without authorisation and requested for a final
chance for personal hearing. Accordingly, the petitioner was given the
opportunity of personal hearing on 18.04.2011, 29.04.2011 and 10.10.2011, but he
did not avail all those opportunities. Respondent No.1 was, therefore, left with
no option other than examining the order of respondent No.2 and confirming the
said order.
The petitioner has not disputed the above facts noted by respondent No.1 in the
impugned G.O. It is noteworthy that the appeal was filed by the petitioner as
far back as 19.02.2001 and he was able to successfully drag on the appeal for
nearly 11 years. On the strength of the interim order obtained by the petitioner
pending the appeal, he continued to hold the post of Police Constable. In my
considered opinion, the petitioner does not deserve any further opportunity.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that his client was denied a fair opportunity of being heard.
Accordingly, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
rejected.
With respect to the merits of the case, it is evident from the facts of the case
that the petitioner has studied Classes 7 to 10 in Nethaji Municipal High
School, Hindupur. He has joined 7th Class in the year 1981 and studied upto 9th
Class. After completion of 9th Class, he has taken the Transfer certificate
bearing No.12/84-85 on 11.06.1984. In the said Transfer certificate, the
petitioner’s caste was clearly mentioned as Hindu-Yadava. Very curiously, the
petitioner has again joined in the same school within 12 days of his taking the
Transfer certificate i.e., on 23.06.1984 in 10th Class. On completion of his
10th Class, the petitioner has obtained Transfer certificate on 01.07.1985,
wherein for the first time, his caste is shown as Hindu-Madiga (SC).
On the basis of the above material, the Committee held that the petitioner has
intentionally taken the Transfer Certificate on completion of 9th Class and
readmitted himself within a few days in 10th Class in the same school with a
false entry that he belongs to Hindu-Madiga (SC) community. The petitioner has
secured employment as Police Constable under reserved quota meant for Scheduled
Castes.
The explanation offered by the petitioner that he was given in adoption to one
Sri Hanumantharayappa and his wife-Marekka, who belonged to Scheduled Caste,
while he was studying 7th Class, was rejected outright by the Committee. The
petitioner failed to produce any adoption deed much less a registered adoption
deed. On perusal of the entire record, the Committee has held that while the
petitioner was readmitted into 10th Class during the year 1985, Sri
Suryanarayana and Venkatamma, who are the brother and mother of the petitioner,
respectively, have signed the petitioner’s application as guardians and that Sri
Suryanarayana has given a statement before the Committee that he himself
admitted the petitioner into Nethaji Municipal High School. The Committee has,
therefore, concluded that the entire case put forth by the petitioner that on
account of adoption taken by Hanumantharayappa and his wife, belonging to
Scheduled Caste, his community has undergone a change is false. Besides
examining the above-mentioned record, the Committee has recorded the statements
of Smt Golla Lakshmi Kanthamma, the paternal aunt of the petitioner,
Sri A.Suryanarayana and Sri G.Venkatesu, brothers of the petitioner and Sri
Golla Nanjappa, brother-in-law of the petitioner and the Senior Manager of the
employer of the petitioner’s brother, and has drawn the conclusion that the
petitioner does not belong to Madiga (SC) community.
Under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, the
burden is on the person who holds the community certificate to prove that he
belongs to the said community. Except asserting that he was adopted by a couple
belonging to Scheduled Caste, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence
whatsoever in support of his stand. On the contrary, overwhelming evidence which
was available before the Committee and discussed by it proved beyond any
reasonable doubt that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu-Madiga (SC)
community and that, he belongs to Yadava (Golla) community, which is a backward
caste.
This Court in B.Suseelamma V. Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool1 has
shown serious concern over growing instances of gross misuse of community
certificates and securing seats in educational institutions and public
employment. It is apt to reproduce the relevant part of its observations herein
below:
“…..It is a matter of grave concern that scores of people who belong to upper
strata of the society have been indulging in gross misuse of the community
certificates obtained by playing fraud, depriving the people belonging to the
oppressed and under-privileged communities of their due share of reservation in
educational institutions and public employment. In the considered opinion of
this court, such people do not deserve any sympathies whatsoever. Not only that
the fake community certificates obtained by the persons making fraudulent claims
should be cancelled, they have to be severely punished by handing-out
appropriate punishment in terms of Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner, thanks
to the bogus community certificate and the interim orders obtained by her after
the cancellation of the community certificate by respondent No.1, has
successfully secured and managed to continue in the employment, for more than
three decades. Thus far, and no further.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). Respondent No.1 is directed to
initiate prosecution forthwith against the petitioner in terms of Section10 of
the Act. Respondent No.2 is directed to initiate appropriate steps against the
petitioner for withdrawal of the benefits secured by her and also recovery of
such benefits in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 11 of the
Act.”
In the light of the above facts, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition
and hence, the same is dismissed. Respondent No.2 is directed to pursue the
criminal case and see that the same is concluded expeditiously, apart from
ensuring that appropriate action is initiated immediately for withdrawal of the
benefits secured by him and recovery of such benefits in accordance with sub-
sections (1) and (3) of Section 11 of the Act.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.43013 of 2011 filed by
the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

_____________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
03rd January 2012

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: