Telangana High Court
WP/26617/2006 of Smt. B. Narasamma, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.26617 of 2006 Dated: December 22, 2006 Between: Smt. B. Narasamma, W/o. B. Gangaram, Hindu, Aged 46 years, Helper ‘B’ Grade, Nuclear Fuel Complex, R/o. H. No.18-90, Girinagar,
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.
Facts
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.26617 of 2006
Dated: December 22, 2006
Between:
Smt. B. Narasamma, W/o. B. Gangaram, Hindu, Aged 46 years, Helper ‘B’ Grade, Nuclear FuelComplex, R/o. H. No.18-90, Girinagar, Opp:IDPL Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
And
Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by itsPrincipal Secretary, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
Order:
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare proceedingsof the first respondent dated 12-05-2006 in Memo No.3617/CV.2/2006-1, whereinthe application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the proceedings of the secondrespondent dated 27-02-2006 was rejected, and the consequential order dated 06/09-12-2006 passed by the third respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are:
Petitioner, claiming to be belonging to ‘Lingadhari Koya’ community, anotified Scheduled Tribe, was appointed as Helper ‘B’ Grade in the thirdrespondent-Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad, in a vacancy reserved for S.T,basing on the certificate issued by the District Collector under the provisions of theA.P. (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (‘theAct’ for brevity). Thereafter, on a complaint made by her employer, i.e. Nuclear FuelComplex about the genuineness of her caste certificate, the District Collector hasinitiated proceedings against her and subsequently by order dated 27-02-2006cancelled the caste certificate issued to her. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner hascarried the matter in appeal before the first respondent-Government under Section7(2) of the Act along with a petition seeking stay of the order dated 27-02-2006. Theappellate authority, i.e. the first respondent-Government, by order dated 12-05-2006,while rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the order dated 27-02-2006, took the appeal on file for its disposal. In view of the order passed by theDistrict Collector and the order of the first respondent-Government rejecting the staypetition, the third respondent issued memo dated 06/09-12-2006 framing a chargeagainst the petitioner, which reads as under:
“That the said Smt. Baja Narasamma, Helper/C (Cos.) has produceda false caste certificate claiming that she belongs to Scheduled TribeCommunity in order to gain employment in Nuclear Fuel Complex.
By her aforesaid act of exhibiting lack of integrity, Smt. Narasammahas contravened the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she has put in several years of service in the thirdrespondent, Nucler Fuel Complex, and she claims that there are good grounds inthe appeal filed by her against the order of the District Collector dated 27-02-2006.Her grievance is that if the aforesaid order of the District Collector is not stayedpending disposal of the appeal, it results in great hardship to her.
4. Against the order of the District Collector dated 27-02-2006, petitioner has filed anappeal as early as on 18-02-2006. As it is stated that basing on the caste certificateissued to the petitioner by the District Collector, she was appointed in the quotareserved for Scheduled Tribes and has been in service for the past several years, I deem it appropriate that the order of the District Collector dated 27-02-2006 be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal by the first respondent-Government.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the appellate authority, i.e. first respondent-Government, to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order ofthe District Collector dated 27-02-2006, as expeditiously as possible, preferablywithin a period of three months from today. Pending disposal of the appeal, the orderof the District Collector dated 27-02-2006 stands suspended. No order as to costs.
__________________________
JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.
December 22, 2006N.B. Furnish C.C. in a week BO
MRR