B ANUSHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claimed that she belongs to Gandla community, which is recognized as one of the Backward Classes and accordingly, the Tahsildar, Kataram Mandal, Karimnagar District has issued a certificate in her favour on 26.08.2010, declaring that she belongs to Backward Classes community. When the petitioner applied for a digitalized certificate by submitting necessary Application on 20.06.2014, through Mee -seva Centre, the Tahsildar, Kataram Mandal has replied on 30.06.2014 that since the applicant does not belong to Gandla community, the digitalized certificate was rejected.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri Naresh Reddy places heavy reliance upon the judgments rendered by this Court in Writ Petitions No. 23764 of 2013 and 15820 of 2014 in support of his plea that so long as the certificate produced by the petitioner is not cancelled in accordance with the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, the same shall be held as valid and binding and the respondents will have to act upon the same. They are bound to furnish a digitalized certificate without rejecting the same.

(3.) THERE are two aspects, which are required to be borne in mind in cases of this nature; the first is, if a validly -obtained certificate is subsisting, the principle that is required to be followed is that a candidate/student need not be driven to obtain such certificates on an annual basis or whenever an occasion would arise for securing admission in some educational institution or the other or in the matters of public employment or for availing any benefits, which the State Government announces for their welfare. A valid certificate once issued holds the field for any length of time. There is no necessity for securing renewal of such certificates at periodical intervals. However, if a certificate has been merely obtained either by way of mis -representation of facts or by mis -statement of the relevant facts, no such certificate can be relied upon for the purpose of securing any advantage or benefit. The principle to be borne in mind in this regard is too well -known. Fraud vitiates every act (See S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs., 1994 AIR(SC) 853. Therefore, it is for the petitioner and similarly -placed candidates to approach the competent authority, who has issued the certificate and then get it verified/authenticated by securing an endorsement on the reverse of the certificate or securing a fresh certificate vouching for the community to which one belongs. If the certificate produced is not a valid one, it can be ignored for all purposes. A certificate, which does not have valid substratum and which does not have firm roots in law, cannot and need not be cancelled by following the provisions of law. A fake certificate will never gain currency or acceptability. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to get back to the Office of the Tahsildar, Kataram Mandal and get the community certificate obtained earlier authenticated after due verification. It should also be remembered that a genuine doubt has been left behind in my mind as to the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner as the Backward Classes, by August 2010, were classified into four sub -groups, called as A, B, C and D. Therefore, while issuing such a certificate, the competent authority is also required to ascertain as to which sub - group amongst the Backward Classes the candidate belongs.