M F V VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. PROJECT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an untrained teacher by the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, through orders dated 26-11-1986. He joined duty on 9-12-1986. He claimed to be a candidate belonging to Agency Mala Community, which is recognized as Schedule Tribe (ST).His appointment was against the vacancy reserved for 'ST'. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the 1st respondent through order dated 30-11-1992 on the ground that the Additional District Magistrate and Joint Collector, East Godavari (hereinafter referred to as 'the Joint Collector') cancelled his Caste Certificate and thereby he is not entitled to continue in the employment. The petitioner challenged he same in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed against a vacancy reserved for 'ST' and since it was found after enquiry by the Joint Collector that the petitioner does not belong to 'ST' and since that order became final, the respondents are left with no alternative except to terminate the services of the petitioner.

(2.) Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and is contrary to the procedure laid down in the A.P. Education Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is also his contention that the CCA Rules applies to the Institution concerned and either way the termination ought not to have been ordered without issuing notice and conducting an enquiry. Sri G.Jayaprakash Babu, learned Government Pleader, submits that inasmuch as the impugned order is passed not by way of punishment, but is a consequence of the result of an enquiry, it was not necessary for the respondents to issue any notice or conduct an enquiry.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed against a vacancy reserved for 'STs'. The impugned order has been passed in view and on the basis of the order passed by the Joint Collector dated 31-10-1992, through which it was held that the petitioner does not belong to 'ST'. The said order is not challenged so far. As long as that order stands, the social status of the petitioner stands certified to the effect that he does not belong to 'ST'. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed against a vacancy reserved for ST' candidate. Once that is so, he is not entitled to continue in a vacancy that was meant for 'ST'.