LUGALAPU JAYA RAMESH Vs. CONVENOR OSMANIA UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the action of the respondents in refusing admission to the petitioner in BCA course for the academic year 1998-1999 on the ground that the Officer deputed by the Director of Backward Class We I fare rejected the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner on the ground that the candidate belongs to other than the two Districts of Srikakulam and Visakhapatnam where the community is predominently inhabitated and as such his case cannot be considered under reserved category. The fact remains (hat a person born in a particular community will carry the caste till his death, whether lie is a resident of that particular area .where the community is predominently inhabitated or not. Merely, because he migrated from that place, he do not lose his caste. On the oilier hand, under Article 19(l)(g) Freedom of Movement is guaranteed 10 all the citizens. In other words, a citizen of this country can shift his residence from one place to the other without any inhabitations. On shifting the place of residence he cannot lose his caste. That being the legal position, the officer is expected to verify whether the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner is true one or not instead of rejecting on the ground that he is not a resident of those two Districts where the community is inhabitated. Had the Officer looked into the S.S.L.C. Certificate issued by (he Board of Secondary Education, the caste of the petitioner would have been reflected in the Certificate. Further, the petitioner produced a Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Rajahrnundry dated 15-7-1973 wherein he certified that the father of the petitioner Mr. Suryanarayana of Raghudevapuram, Rajahmundry Taluk belonged to Thurpu Kapu Community. But without verifying the records, the officer simply rejected the case of the petitioner by which the petitioner lost his admission. At the same time, I would like to make it clear that as and when the Verification Officer gets a doubt, he is always entitled to probe further into the matter and on his satisfaction only about the genuinity of the certificate produced by an individual, he should counter sign the certificate produced by an individual. The judgment mean and should be interpreted as that as and when the Officer gets a doubt about the genuinity of the Certificate he should further probe into the matter and decide the issue on the basis of the material produced before him instead of rejecting the case of the petitioner straight-away without application of mind.

(2.) At this stage, the petitioner Counsel brought to my notice that initially lie filed Writ Petition No.494/1999 in the year 1999 and ihis Court by an interim order directed the respondent to admit the petitioner to the course. But without admitting the petitioner to the BCA Course, the University seemed to have filed a vacate stay petition and the writ petition was finally disposed of by giving direction to the authorities concerned to conduct enquiry into the genuineness of the Certificate produced by the petitioner within four weeks and pass appropriate orders. When the officer did not comply with the order, the petitioner seemed to have filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench contending that the learned Judge did not set aside the rejection order passed by the Officer deputed by the Director of Backward Classes. The Honourable Chief Justice speaking for the Bench in Writ Appeal No.817 of 1999, dated 17-6-1999 categorically observed that "a reading of the order of the learned single Judge leaves us in no doubt that the finding of the authority lias been set aside and fresh enquiry ordered" and the authorities were directed to complete the enquiry afresh on merits in accordance with law. As the authorities did not complete the enquiry this writ petition has been filed. In the light of the view taken by me, the endorsement made by the Officer of the Director of Backward Class Welfare cannot be sustained in law and the same was already set aside by this Court. But after going through the record in this case, a finding was recorded by me that the petitioner belongs to 'Thurpu Kapu Community' B.C. - 'D' and as such he is entitled for admission into the BCA Course.

(3.) Now the question before the Court is whether the petitioner has to be admitted in the BCA Course for the academic year 1998-1999 or 1999-2000. It is not in dispute that the session for academic year 1998-1999 commenced only in January. 1999 and this Court in January, 1999 itself directed the authorities concerned to give admission to the petitioner. But the authorities did not comply with the order. Now the Counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner Cannot be given admission in BCA Course for the-academic year 1998-1999 for (he reason that the first semester has already been completed and he may not be able to put in the required attendance to write the examinations on the completion of the first year.