Telangana High Court
WP/39935/2012 of Pediredla Srinivasa Rao S/o Babu Rao, Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2012
L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39935 of 2012 ORDER: The petitioner is an employee of Heavy Water Plant, Aswarpuram, Khammam District, against the vacancy reserved in favour of Schedule Tribes. He obtained a certificate to the effect that he belongs to Yerukala caste. The Revenue
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.39935 of 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner is an employee of Heavy Water Plant,Aswarpuram, Khammam District, against the vacancy reserved infavour of Schedule Tribes. He obtained a certificate to the effect thathe belongs to Yerukala caste. The Revenue Divisional Officer &Agency Divisional Officer, Palvancha Division – 2[nd] respondent,issued notice, dated 10-12-2012, to the petitioner requiring him to attend his office on 29-12-2012 for an enquiry into the genuinity of his caste certificate. The petitioner contends that the social status of his father wasdeclared as Yerukala, way back in the year 1953, by which time, thecaste was not included in the S.T. category and thereafter, thepetitioner and his brothers were issued caste certificates. He submitsthat when the caste certificate issued to his brother was cancelled,W.P. No.11704 of 1987 was filed and that the same has been allowedon 23-01-1992. He has referred to another order passed by this Courtin W.P. No.20235 of 1994 filed by his another brother. He contendsthat the issue pertains to social status, cannot be reopened at thislength of time.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Social Welfare.
3. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner and his other familymembers were issued caste certificates decades ago, and at one pointof time an order of cancellation was set aside by this Court. A show-cause notice can be challenged in a writ petition, if it is issued by anauthority, not vested with the jurisdiction, or contrary to relevantprovisions of law. The petitioner does not dispute that the 2[nd] respondent, acting as part of the District Level Screening Committee, under Section 5 of the A.P. (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation ofissue of Community Certificates, Act 1993, has the power to issuenotice in an enquiry into the genunity of the social status, claimed bythe petitioner. This Court would certainly have interfered even with theshow-cause notice, had it been a case where any final pronouncementwas made about the social status of the father or brothers of thepetitioner. W.P. No.11704 of 1987 was allowed only on the groundthat the principles of natural justice were not followed. Nowhere in thatorder, the social status of the brothers of the petitioner, was confirmed. The petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any detriment onaccount of being issued a notice. He can certainly put forward all thecontentions and place reliance upon any material that is in his favour. Further, he does not face any threat to his employment, as of now.
4. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to thepetitioner to appear in response to the notice, dated 10-12-2012, andput forward his contentions. It is directed that the concerned authorityshall take into account all the contentions that may be advanced by thepetitioner, before any final order is passed. It is needless to mentionthat the employment of the petitioner shall not be disturbed till any finalorder is passed. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. The miscellaneous petition filed in the writ petition also shallstand disposed of.
December 28, 2012.
KTL
____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J