Telangana High Court
WP/14126/2010 of M.Koteswara Rao Vs The District Collector on 30 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.14126 of 2010 Dated 30th December, 2011 Between: M.Koteswara Rao …Petitioner And The District Collector, Guntur and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Ravi Mohan Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWrit Petition No.14126 of 2010
Between:
Dated 30thDecember, 2011
M.Koteswara RaoAnd
…Petitioner
The District Collector, Guntur and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Ravi Mohan Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP for Social WelfareCounsel for respondent No.4: Sri Dantu SrinivasCounsel for respondent No.2: Sri K.G.Surendranath Yadav The Court made the following:
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 internal correspondence between respondent No.1 andrespondent No.4 is questioned in this writ petition.
By the impugned letter addressed by respondent No.1, he hasopined that the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner is notgenuine as the same was not entered in the caste certificate issueregister and that the petitioner belongs to Boya-Valmiki which comesunder BC-A category but not ST. It is also stated therein that in theschool records of the petitioner, his caste is noted as Valmiki whichcomes under BC-A. Purporting to act on this letter, respondent No.2has removed the petitioner from employment.
In my opinion, the letter addressed by respondent No.1 torespondent No.4 does not create a cause of action for the petitioner toavail the remedy of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. By the said letter, the District Collector has merely expressedhis opinion on the petitioner’s caste certificate and the said certificateis neither cancelled by the said proceedings nor has the District Collector requested respondent No.4 to take action against thepetitioner for removal from employment. Unless and until the opinionof respondent No.1 has culminated into a decision leading tocancellation of the petitioner’s caste certificate, the impugned letterremains only the opinion of respondent No.1 and nothing more. In thisview of the matter, I do not find any reason to adjudicate on the validityof the impugned letter. The petitioner is permitted to work out hisremedies if respondent No.4 has acted upon the impugned letter ofrespondent No.1.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order, dated21.07.2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.17764 of 2010 isdisposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J30[th] December, 2011VGB