DOKKULURI CHITTI BABU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was bom in Tadepalli Village of Maredumilli mandal, of East-Godavari District, which is in scheduled area. He claims that he belongs to Valmiki Caste, recognized as Scheduled tribe. On 24. 9. 1990, he was appointed as assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short the Corporation' ). Thereafter, he earned certain promotions, in that organization.

(2.) THE Corporation addressed letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maredumilli (for short 'the M. R. O. '), to inquire into the genuinity of the social status of the petitioner. Initially, the M. R. O. issued proceedings dated 17. 7. 1992, confirming that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, further inquiry was conducted by the m. R. O. , and Revenue Divisional Officer, rampachodavaram (for short 'the R. D. O. ' ). On the basis of the reports submitted by those officers, the District Collector, East-Godavari, at Kakinada, the 2nd respondent, initiated proceedings under the AP (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community certificates Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act')and the Rules made thereunder. The allegation against the petitioner was, that he belongs to 'mala Community', which is recognized as Scheduled Caste, and that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. A show-cause was issued, requiring the petitioner to appear before the District level Scrutiny Committee (for short 'the committee' ). He appeared before the committee on the specified date. The petitioner represented that Malas, in agency tracts are treated as equivalent to 'valmiki caste', and the caste certificate issued to him does not suffer from any infirmity.

(3.) THE Committee submitted its report, expressing the opinion, that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. The 2nd respondent took the report, as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner, into account, and passed orders dated 15. 12. 2000, declaring that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste, and not scheduled Tribe. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent against the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The appeal was dismissed, vide orders in G. O. Ms. No. 35, dated 26. 3. 2002. Hence this writ petition.