P SUMALATHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the decision of the Supreme Court in Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University, it is quite clear that in order to claim protective discrimination or economic benefits either under Articles 15 (4) or 16(4) of the Constitution mere transplantation of a member belonging to non-S.C. non-S.T., non-O.B.C into S.Cs., S.Ts. or O.B.Cs. either by way of marriage or conversion or adoption is not sufficient. What is required to be proved is that the person transplanted too had undergone the same handicaps, disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings as the members of the S.Cs., S.Ts., or O.B.Cs. The petitioner was born and brought up as a member of Toorpu Kapu caste which caste is notified to be Backward Class in the State of Andhra Pradesh as per the notification issued by the Governor of the State, She married one P. Durga Rao who admittedly belongs to Scheduled Caste. After her marriage she claimed the status of Scheduled Caste. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal issued the certificate certifying that the petitioner belongs to S.C. On the basis of that certificate, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Telugu Grade I Pandit, a post earmarked for the members belonging to the Scheduled Caste. On the complaint lodged by an unsuccessful candidate, an enquiry was ordered to find out whether the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the petitioner was valid, and the matter was referred to the District Collector. The District Collector, after enquiry, found that the issuance of the certificate to the petitioner was quite contrary to the guidelines contained in Letter No. 35/1 /72/R.V. (SCT.V) dt. 2-5-1975. In view of that finding, the District Collector cancelled the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the impugned proceedings.

(2.) The burden to prove that the petitioner too had undergone the same handicaps, disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings is on the petitioner. The question whether the petitioner has undergone those sufferings, disabilities and indignities is a pure question of fact. A careful reading of the impugned order makes it very clear that the petitioner did not place any materials to prove these facts. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given an opportunity to prove those facts.

(3.) The resultant position is that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the District Collector. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.