LAWS(APH)-2012-1-66

G DURGA PRASAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE CV I DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD

Decided On January 03, 2012
G. DURGA PRASAD Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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:

(3.) 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.