BEERAM SUDHAKAR Vs. GOVT. OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the APSRTC against a vacancy reserved in favour of Schedule Tribes. When he was working in the Manuguru Depot of APSRTC, 4th respondent herein, a complaint was received to the effect that the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner is not genuine. Since the caste certificate was obtained from the Tahsildar, Manuguru, 3rd respondent herein, proceedings were initiated under Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') by the District Collector, Khammam, 2nd respondent herein. The matter was entrusted to the District Level Committee (for short 'the Committee'), headed by the Joint Collector. The Committee issued a notice to the petitioner and a detailed enquiry was conducted. A report was submitted to the effect that the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner is not a genuine one and that the petitioner does not belong to Koya community. It was also mentioned that petitioner belongs to Kapu community. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 16.01.2011 directing cancellation of the caste certificate, dated 06.07.1987 and 04.05.2007. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent herein. The appeal was rejected through orders in G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare Department, dated 24-01- 2013. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was prosecuted on the very allegation and the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru acquitted him through judgment, dated 08.04.2010 in C.C.No.226 of 2007. He contends that though the judgment was cited before respondents 1 and 2, the same was not taken into account. Learned counsel further submits that a small discrepancy as to the surname and the blanks that existed against the column pertaining to 'caste' in the records of educational institutions, where petitioner studied, are being projected as the basis for cancellation of the caste certificate.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner fabricated several records, in his effort to secure employment against a vacancy reserved in favour of Schedule Tribes. He contends that for the first time, the petitioner claimed the status of Schedule Tribe by filling the blank in the Transfer Certificate issued by the Junior College and the enquiry conducted by the District Level Committee demonstrated that the father of petitioner was not at all from Manuguru area, much less he was a Schedule Tribe. He refers to the evidence recorded from the brother and sister of the petitioner.