http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 1 of 8
PETITIONER:DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESHVs.RESPONDENT:LAVETI GIRI AND ANOTHERDATE OF JUDGMENT18/04/1995BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.VENKATACHALA N. (J)CITATION:1995 AIR 1506 1995 SCC (4) 32JT 1995 (3) 684 1995 SCALE (2)815ACT:HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:K. RAMASWAMY, J.:1.Leave granted.2.This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment andorder of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated January 16,1984 made in Writ Appeal No. 1040 of 1983. This is a secondcase after Madhuri’s case in which this Court noticed fraudupon the Constitution played by the plainman to wear themask of false social status to comer the Constitutionalbenefits of reservation of admission into professionalcourse under Art. 15(4), an integral scheme of socio-economic justice conferred on the disadvantage ScheduledTribes. The Government of Andhra Pradesh stated in G.O.Ms.Nos. 245 dated June 30, 1977 and reiterated in G.O. No.289dated November 28, 1986 of the Social Welfare Department ofthe Andhra Pradesh Government, that it is notorious tosecure false caste/community certificates that "a verynumerous applications are received from spurious candidatesclaiming and projecting privileges exclusively provided toScheduled Tribes candidates with the help of falsecertificates relying in not only dilution but also denial ofbenefits to Scheduled Tribes candidates." It would be thusan undeniable fact that to secure false social status as aScheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes, the plainman playfraud on the Constitution to secure admission in theprofessional courses or appointment to a post or officeunder the State or its instrumentalities. The DivisionBench put a premium on fraud on the Constitution by itstraditional treatment to the burning malady.3. The respondent is son of one L. Hanumantha Rao, aGovernment servant in Engineering Department of State Gov-ernment. The admitted facts are that their nativity thoughinitially was Amadalavalas in Srikamulam Dist. settled downin Satyavedu in Eluru Taluk of West Godavari District. Byappointment and transfer the respondent’s father, whileworking in Hyderabad was stating in Malakpot within the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 2 of 8
jurisdiction of the Tehsildar Musheerabad, HyderabadDistrict. For admission into Engineering course, he ob-tained caste certificate from Tehsildar Vallabhnagar, RangaReddy Dist. that he belongs to Kondakapu community a noti-fied Scheduled Tribe. While provisionally admitting therespondent into first year course of B.E., the Principal,Osmania University, Engineering College referred the matterto the Director, Tribal Welfare for confirmation of thesocial status of the respondent. On receipt thereof thelatter issued notice to the respondent to appear before himwith all necessary certificates along with an adult malemember who would answer the questions. Though the appellanthad appeared with photostat copies of the certificatesbefore the Director on July 21,1983, the adult member, inother words, is father L. Hanumantha Rao had not appeared.In spite of giving time for his appearance, the Directorhaving found that the respondent’s father did not appear,considered the certificates produced by the respondent andconcluded that since Tehsildar Vallabhnagar was notcompetent to issue the social status certificate, it wasfound to be without jurisdiction. In the school certificateof the father of the respondent, it was recorded that he was"Kapu" which would mean that respondent and his father donot belong to Kondakapu community, Scheduled Tribe. Callingin question of the order of the Director dated August 20,1993, the respon-691dent filed Writ Petition No. 7134/83. The learned SingleJudge by his order dated October 22, 1983 dismissed the WritPetition. On appeal the Division Bench reversed the orderof the Single Judge primarily on three grounds, firstly,that the admission brochure of the Osmania Universityindicates that a Tehsildar is competent to issue thecertificate. Since Tehsildar Vallabhnagar is a competentofficer and the certificate issued by him was valid in law.It was also held that the father of the respondent was inservice of State Government and his service records and theeducational certificates established him to be a ScheduledTribe. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to enter thestatus as Scheduled Tribe The Director rejected the claim ofthe respondent on assumptions and surmises.4.It is contended by Sri Prabhakar, learned counsel for theappellants that the High Court was not right in relying onthe documents produced by the respondent without any proofThe father did not appear to explain the circumstances underwhich he had the status of Scheduled Tribe. The certificatefrom Tehsildar of the nativity criteria is discernible fromthe brochure of the University. University is required tocall upon the candidate to produce the required socialstatus certificate, when a candidate’s claim is founded uponsuch a social status. Relevant rules or orders issued bythe Government in Social Welfare Department prescribed theprocedure in that behalf The High Court in its traditionalwould wrongly caused the burden of proof on the Departmentwhen it squarely rests upon the candidate to prove hiscaste/tribe according to the procedure prescribed under therules, It is the duty of the certificate issuing authorityto satisfy himself after due verification whether thecandidates belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,satisfies the criteria prescribed by the Government. Thoughthe father managed to gain falsely social status as Tribeand wrongfully and unconstitutionally is in enjoyment of thebenefit of employment as a tribe, it is not conclusive. Itis not uncommon to comer such benefits with connivance ofofficers and it is known facts that a strong bureaucrat
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 3 of 8
lobby successfully prevent either proof of falsity or itssuppression. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken therelevant factors into consideration to dismiss the Writpetition. We find force in the contention. Shri Y.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the respondentvehemently contended that the view of the Division Bench ofthe High Court is quite legal and justifiable on the facts.The candidate does not know from which officer he has toobtain the social status certificate. The brochureindicates that the certificate from a Tehslidar issufficient. It does not show that the Tehsildar of thenativity was required to issue the certificate. The fatherof the respondent having already in enjoyment of the statusas Kondakapu in Government Service, it is a great materialconclusive fact to decide the issue. The Director,therefore, was not correct in rejecting the social status.The Single Judge had committed error in relying upon thereport of the Director. Having given our anxiousconsideration, we are of the view that the Division Benchhas put premium on fraud played by the respondent and hisfather to secure false social status as Kondakapu while theyare Kapus by caste, a forward caste in Andhra Pradesh,5. The Presidential notification clearly mentions thatKonda Kapus and Konda692Reddies are Scheduled Tribes in Andhra Pradesh. Kapus andReddies are plain People who arc forward caste from the mainstream of the society and are of upper social strata. Theendemic characteristic of Scheduled Tribes and plain peopleare distinct, different and never in common. Konda Kapu andKonda Reddies live in tribal areas of forest, mountainoustracks and shifting cultivation and gathering minor forestproduced are their main avocation. The Totamics clearlydifferentiate and demarcates them from the plain people ofKapus and Reddies. Their customs, marriages are different.The Government in G.O.Ms. No. 147 dated April 27, 1977 ofSocial Welfare Department clearly mentioned that theTehsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer or AssistantCollector or Sub Collector of the Taluk or DivisionalDistricts in respect of which the members claims nativityare competent to issue social status certificate. In thesame G.O. Kapus and Reddies have been enumerated to be aScheduled Tribes. In G.O.Ms. No. 245 dated June 30, 1977Social Welfare Department enumerated the distinct groups oftribes different from plains. Kapus and Reddies do not haveany similarity in their habits culture. There was no commonsocial or economic patterns. In order to establish whethera particular candidate belong to any of the ScheduledTribe/group diverse ethnic or cultural identities werementioned. In Annexure 1 of the G.O. the candidates arerequired to furnish the particulars prescribed therein. Thecompetent officer was to verify and satisfy himself of thetrue social status, of the candidate before issuing thesocial status certificate. The same was further enumeratedand elaborated in G.O.Ms. No. 289 dated November 26, 1986,after the dispute in this case had arisen with which we arenot concerned in this appeal. The orders also specificallysay that who ever was given or taken false caste certificateare liable to be prosecuted. The officer be penalised inDepartmental proceedings for dereliction the duty includingdismissal from service when found that officer deliberatelyissued false certificate.6.The learned Single Judge has pointed out that in WritPetition No. 9071/ 82 filed by the sister of the respondent,the father of the respondent and his sister were called upon
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
ENTRIES IN SCHOOL RECORDS WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN PROBATIVE VALUE, IN THE MATTER OF DECIDING THE DATE OF BIRTH AND OTHER PERSONAL ANTECEDENTS 1997 SC
In the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Girl AIR 1997 SC 2046 , the Supreme Court held that the burden to prove the social status would rest upon the person,…
(More)
51
Reads
1
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
