REGULAVALASA CHIRANJEEVI RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below is the appellant in this second appeal. He filed the suit in the trial Court for declaration that he belongs to 'kondadora' caste which is a scheduled tribe under the constitution (Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 issued by the President of India and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from making any enquiry into truth or otherwise of caste of the plaintiff in violation of caste certificate issued by the 3rd defendant. According to the plaintiff, he belongs to 'kondadora' caste which is a schedule tribe and after detailed enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurupam issued caste certificate on 27.04.1987 to that effect. It is contended that the 2nd defendant/Project Officer Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Parvathipuram took into consideration the said caste certificate issued by the 3rd defendant/Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurupam and appointed the plaintiff as BEd., Assistant on 06.01.1988 and posted the plaintiff at Ashram School, Dharmalakshmipuram and that therefore the defendants are estopped to make further enquiry with regard to caste of the plaintiff and that the 3rd defendant issued notices for making enquiry into caste of the plaintiff which is without jurisdiction. On the other hand, it is contention of the defendants that the plaintiff managed to secure false certificate from the 3rd defendant as if he belongs to 'kondadora' caste and that on complaint made by one Padmanabha to the defendants 1 and 2 and the Director of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad on the ground that the plaintiff belongs to 'Kshatriya' caste, the 3rd defendant was directed to conduct enquiry into truth of the matter, and that the suit is not maintainable in Civil Court and that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC.

(2.) After trial, in which both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit without costs, giving findings on all issues. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal without costs, confirming findings of the trial Court. Against the appellate decree and judgment, the plaintiff filed this appeal. Previously, this Court by the judgment dated 21.02.2007 dismissed this second appeal without costs on merits. As against the said judgment of this Court, the appellant/plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 2629 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (C) 16522 of 2007). The Supreme Court by order dated 17.03.2009 disposed of the appeal with the following observations:

(3.) Therefore, it has to be seen in this appeal whether the second appeal is maintainable in terms of Section 100 CPC, inasmuch as whether any substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal? After filing of this second appeal, no admission procedure was followed and no substantial question of law was framed by the learned Judges and no admission of the second appeal was made. Therefore, primary question of this Court is to find whether any substantial question of law emanates in this second appeal?