Telangana High Court
WP/26622/2005 of G. Ramakrishna Vs The District Collector (Social Welfare) on 23 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26622 of 2005 Dated 23-12-2005 Between: G.Ramakrishna. .. PETITIONER AND The District Collector (Social Welfare), Visakhapatnam and others. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER The petitioner was employed in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust as Chargehand,
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26622 of 2005
Dated 23-12-2005
Between:
G.Ramakrishna.
.. PETITIONER
AND
The District Collector (Social Welfare), Visakhapatnam and others.
.. RESPONDENTS
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 was employed in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust asChargehand, against a vacancy reserved in favour of S.Ts. On noticing that thesocial status claimed by the petitioner is not genuine, proceedings were initiated bythe District Collector, Visakapatnam-first respondent herein, under the provisions ofA.P.(Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation ofIssue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner statesthat no order has been communicated to him so far. His complaint is that evenbefore the proceedings initiated against him under the Act have culminated in anyorders, the second respondent had initiated disciplinary proceedings and placedhim under suspension through order dated 23-09-2005. It is also alleged thatcriminal proceedings were initiated for prosecuting him. He submits that the actioninitiated against him cannot be sustained in law.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader forSocial Welfare and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 12-06-2005 by the first respondent in exercise of powers under the Act. The petitioner wasdirected to explain as to how the social status claimed can be sustained in law. Thepetitioner is under the impression that the final orders were not passed as yet.Today, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare has placed before thiscourt, a copy of order dated 26-08-2005, passed by the first respondent. A perusal ofthe same discloses that the District Level Scrutiny Committee Headed by the JointCollector submitted a report stating that the petitioner does not belong to S.T. and that in fact he belongs to Devanga (B.C.) caste. The first respondent did not feel thenecessity of canceling the caste certificate, inasmuch as the petitioner did notproduce the original thereof. The various proceedings initiated by the second andthird respondents are consequential to the order dated 26-08-2005 passed by thefirst respondent. Hence, as long as the said order is in force, no exception can betaken to the proceedings initiated by the second and third respondents.
It is not in dispute that the Act provides for an appeal against an order passed underSection 5 thereof. The petitioner can avail the remedy and seek appropriate interimorders. This court cannot go into merits of the order passed by the first respondent, atthis stage.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner, toavail the remedy of appeal provided for, under the Act. Since the petitioner statesthat the order passed by the first respondent was not communicated to him, theappeal shall be treated as having been presented within limitation, if it is filed withinthree weeks from today. There shall be interim stay of prosecution of the petitioner,for a period of four weeks from today. Within this time, it shall be open to thepetitioner, to seek appropriate interim orders from the appellate authority. There shallbe no order as to costs.
Note:Issue C.C. in three days.
(B/o)
23-12-2005
______________
Prv