S. Pangajam vs The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer and Indian Overseas Bank

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—S. Pangajam, daughter of A.S. Sen Redely, has filed this writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of Certiorari

by calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Roc. 34348/91 (D-10) dated 3.9.1992 of the District Collector of Salem District, the first

Respondent herein and quash order passed therein.

The case of the Petitioner is as follows:

The Petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community, a Scheduled Tribe. In the year 1977, the Indian Overseas Bank, Madras, third Respondent

herein, called for applications for the post of Clerical cadre. The Petitioner applied to the said post under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes.

She was selected in the written test. Thereafter, in the interview, she produced the two community certificates dated 30.10.1974 and 4.10.1978

issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk in support of her claim that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. Subsequently, she was appointed

as a Clerk in the Bank in December 1978. In 1982 she was promoted as an Officer. In 1988 the Indian Overseas Bank directed her to produce

the original community certificate, in 1989 she recieved a memorandum from the Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk to appear for an enquiry regarding her

community status. She sent letters to the Tahsildar as to why the said enquiry had to be conducted. Again, she received several memoranda from

the Tahsildar. The Petitioner also sent letters after letters requesting for the reason for the enquiry. Subsequently, the District Collector, the first

Respondent herein called upon her to appear before the Collector for an enquiry through notice dated 29.8.1990. Thereafter, the Petitioner

demanded the copy of the report received from the second Respondent and other documents. In pursuance of the said request, the copies were

furnished and she was called upon to appear for the enquiry. She appeared and gave her explanation on 17.8.1992. She had also produced

various documents along with the said explanation. On that date, she was not called upon to produce her witnesses. Thereafter, she received the

order passed by the first Respondent dated 3.9.1992 ordering cancellation of the two community certificates produced by her by holding that the

Petitioner does- not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community. Hence, this writ petition challenging the said order dated 3.9.1992.

The case of the first Respondent-the District Collector and the third Respondent-Indian Overseas Bank through their separate counter-affidavits

is as follows:

The third Respondent by the letter dated 22.9.1988 requested the first Respondent to verify the genuineness of the community certificates dated

30.10.1974 and 4.10.1978 issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur to the Petitioner. The second Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an

enquiry and sent several letters to the Petitioner asking her to produce evidence to prove her community. In spite of the receipt of all these letters,

she did not turn up. Therefore, on the available materials, the second Respondent sent a report dated 27.12.1989 to the first Respondent.

Thereafter, the first Respondent sent a notice dated 10.12.1991 asking her appear on 30.12.1991. After receipt of the said notice, she requested

the first Respondent to furnish the copy of the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report to offer her explanation. ''Therefore, the documents which were

required by her were furnished to her. She requested for adjournments. Finally, she appeared for the enquiry on 17.8.1992 and produced xerox

copies of several documents in support of her claim. During the enquiry, she had neither produced original nor true copy of the documents nor

evidence thereof. Most of those documents were found to be in no way connected with her. After perusing the records, the first Respondent

concluded that the community certificates dated 30.10.1991 and 4.10.1978 were not genuine and the same were liable to be cancelled.

Accordingly, he passed an order on 3.9.1992 stating that she belongs to Reddiar community, a forward community and on the basis of false

representation, those certificates were obtained. On receipt of the said order, the third Respondent issued show cause notice-to the Petitioner

calling for explanation as to why her services should not be terminated. At that stage, the Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order of

the first Respondent dated 3.9.1992.

Mr. Kannadasan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would mainly argue on three points, while challenging the impugned order, which

are as follows:

(1) The enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in a discreet manner cannot be a valid one. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional

Officer''s report on the basis of the said discreet enquiry cannot be acted upon.

(2) The Petitioner produced 30 documents before the Collector during the course of enquiry in support of her claim and the same were rejected on

the flimsy reason that they cannot be taken as evidence as they are xerox copies.

(3) The Collector conducted an enquiry and passed an order without issuing show cause notice to the Petitioner. Therefore, the conclusion arrived

at by the Collector cancelling the community certificates issued in favour of the Petitioner is against law, as the opportunities required to be given to

the Petitioner were not given.

On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. G. Narasimhulu, learned Counsel

appearing for the third Respondent, while refuting the above points would submit that the impugned order passed by the Collector on 3.9.1992

was only in accordance with law after giving full opportunities to the Petitioner and as such, the impugned order could not be said to be suffered

from any illegality.

Before dealing with the merits of the respective contentions, it would be better to notice the chronological events that took place in this case, as

it would reflect a chequered history:

(a) The Petitioner in the year 1977 applied for the post of clerical cadre under the quota reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. She was selected for

the post on the basis of the community certificates dated 30.10.1974 and 4.1C.1978 issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk mentioning that the

Petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community being a Scheduled Tribe. On 21.12.1978 she was appointed as a Clerk in the Bank, the third

Respondent herein. In July 1982, she was promoted as an Officer.

(b) In the year 1988, the third Respondent on finding that there were some discrepancies between the caste certificate and the S.S.L.C. certificate

with regard to the caste status of the Petitioner, referred the matter to the first Respondent-Collector of Salem through the letter dated 22.9.1988

to cause verification with regard to the genuineness of the caste status of the Petitioner.

(c) On receipt of the said letter, the Collector of the Salem, the first Respondent herein asked the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, the second

Respondent to conduct enquiry with reference to the same and send his report regarding the social status of Selvi S. Pangajam. Accordingly, the

Revenue Divisional Officer while initiating enquiry sent a notice to the [Petitioner asking her to appear in the said enquiry and to produce evidence

to prove her community on 26.8.1989 and thereafter, on 27.10.1989. But. she did not turn up for the enquiry. On the other hand, she sent letters

asking the Officer as to why the said enquiry had to be conducted. Again, she was asked to appear for the enquiry by sending several letters. But,

she neither turned up nor produced any evidence. Therefore, on the basis of available materials, the report dated 27.12.1989 was sent to the first

Respondent stating that the Petitioner did not belong to Konda Reddy community and she actually belonged to Reddiar community, a forward

caste.

(d) After receipt of the said report, the first Respondent sent a notice dated 29.8.1990 with the direction to appear for the enquiry on 3.9.1990

before the first Respondent with oral and documentary evidence in support of her claim relating to her caste status. On 3.9.1990, she did not

appear. Again, another notice was sent directing her to attend the enquiry on 4.2.1991. It was informed to the first Respondent by the employer,

the third Respondent herein, that she had gone on long leave to U.S.A. and so, on 4.2.1991, she did not appear. Ultimately, when the third

Respondent informed the first Respondent by letter dated 3.12.1991 that the Petitioner rejoined duty after her return from U.S.A., the first

Respondent again sent a notice asking her to attend the enquiry on 30.12.1991 by the letter dated 10.12.1991. This notice was received by her on

17.12.1991. This time, she sent a letter dated 28.12.1991 requesting the first Respondent to furnish the copy of the second Respondent''s report

dated 27.12.1989 and for the grant of four weeks'' time to offer her explanation. Accordingly, the copy of the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report

with enquiry records were furnished to her on 5.2.1992 and she was directed to appear for enquiry on 2.3.1992. She received the said notice on

14.2.1992.

(e) Again, the enquiry was adjourned to 23.3.1992. But, she did not attend the enquiry on 23.3.1992 and requested for adjournment through her

letter dated 21.3.1992. Therefore, she was directed to appear for enquiry on 4.5.1992 through the letter dated 10.4.1992. On 4.5.1992, she did

not turn up for enquiry. Again, through the letter dated 26.5.1992, she was directed to appear on 15.6.1992, for the enquiry. On 15.6.1992 she

attended the enquiry and presented a petition requesting adjournment. So, she was again directed to appear for enquiry on 20.7.1992 through the

letter 25.6.1992. This time she did not turn up for enquiry, but sent a telegram stating her inability to attend the enquiry due to illness. Accordingly,

she was again directed to appear for the enquiry on 17.8.1992 through the letter dated 5.8.1992.

(f) Finally, she appeared for the enquiry on 17.8.1992 and produced xerox copies of some documents in support of her claim that she belongs to

Konda Reddy community. No other evidence was produced. So, the enquiry was closed on that day. Ultimately, the impugned order was passed

by the first Respondent cancelling the community certificates dated 30.10.1974 and 4.10.1978 which were found to be not genuine and holding

that the Petitioner did not belong to Konda Reddy community.

The above factual details would give out three important/factors:

(1) The earlier enquiry conducted by the second Respondent was not a discreet enquiry and on the other hand, the Petitioner herself would admit

that she received several notices from the Officer of the second Respondent, but however, she did not appear except sending the letters asking for

the reason from the Office of the second Respondent as to why such an enquiry had to he commenced.

(2) After receipt of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first Respondent directed to come and appear to give her explanation with

reference to the finding given in the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Petitioner demanded for the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report

and other records. Accordingly, they were furnished to her.

(3) After receipt of the records, she was asked to appear for the enquiry before the Collector on several occasions and on most of the dates, the

hearing was adjourned only at her instance to enable her produce the evidence and ultimately, she appeared on 17.8.1992 and produced some

xerox copies of the documents in support of her claim.

From this, it is clear that she was given notice and particulars were given to put forth her claim.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would cite two authorities, namely, G.B. Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra 1996 (2) SLR 868 and Gulzar

Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate 1999 (3) L.L.N. 832 and the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Review Application No. 104

of 1999 in Writ Appeal No. 887 of 1999 dated 4.2.2000, in order to substantiate his contention that when there is no show cause notice requiring

the Petitioner to offer an explanation with regard to the community status, the proceedings are not valid and the proceeding of the District Collector

in the absence of any opportunity to the Petitioner, is vitiated.

For this proposition of law, there is no quarrel. In the instant case, as indicated above, on receipt of the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report

dated 27.12.1989 recommending for cancellation of the community certificates issued in fax our of the Petitioner, the notices were sent by the first

Respondent seeking for explanation with reference to the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report and asking the Petitioner to adduce evidence to

substantiate her claim so as to disprove the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report. The notices were dated 29.8.1990, 10.12.1991, 5.2.1992,

10.4.1992, 26.5.1992. 25.6.1992 and 5.8.1992. In fact, when she received notice dated 10.12.1991 asking her to attend enquiry on

30.12.1991, she requested the first Respondent to furnish the copy of the second Respondent''s report dated 27.12.1989 and also requessed for

grant of four weeks"" time for offering her explanation in her letter dated 28.12.1991.

These things would show that she received several notices from the first Respondent and she asked for time to give her explanation and also

she demanded the copy of the second Respondent''s report and other records in order to give her reply and the evidence in contra to the Revenue

Divisional Officer''s report and accordingly, the said records were sent and received by her. Even thereafter, several notices were sent and the

same were received by the Petitioner and ultimately, she appeared on 17.8.1992 on receipt of the last notice dated 5.8.1992 sent by the first

Respondent.

These notices sent by the first Respondent to give opportunity to the Petitioner to enable her to give explanation and her evidence to

substantiate her claim are nothing but show cause notices.

In the decision reported in 1999(3) L.L.N.832 (supra), it has been held that if a certificate was to be cancelled on the basis of some enquiry

which had been conducted by the department, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, to issue a show cause notice to the delinquent

requiring him to explain as to why the Scheduled Tribe certificate which had been issued should not be cancelled.

The above observation of the Supreme Court would clearly show that an opportunity must be given to the Petitioner by issuing notice requiring

the Petitioner to explain as to why the certificate should not be cancelled.

In the instant case, as noted above, several notices admittedly had been received asking for giving her explanation and on receipt of the said

notices, she has also asked for further time to give her explanation. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the enquiry in which the

Petitioner admittedly participated was conducted without issuing show cause notice. Therefore, the decisions referred to above would not apply to

the present facts of the case.

The other decision in the Review Application No. 104 of 1999 in W.A. No. 887 of 1999 also would not apply to the present facts of the case

because in that case, admittedly, the Petitioner did not receive the report of the Collector and other records and therefore, the proceeding of the

District Collector in that matter was held to be vitiated. That is not the case here.

As referred to above, the Petitioner sent a letter on 28.12.1991 requesting for furnishing the copy of the second Respondent''s report and

other records and the same were received by her and thereafter, she was directed to attend the enquiry on 2.3.1992 and other subsequent dates.

Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner, especially when the Petitioner herself would admit that the first

Respondent furnished the copy of the report and other records and thereafter, called upon her to appear for the enquiry. So, both the decisions

would not be of any help to the Petitioner.

Finding that the above points would not give any helping hand to the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would mainly stress upon

the other point, namely, non-consideration of the xerox copies of the documents produced by the Petitioner, while passing the impugned order

dated 3.9.1992 by the first Respondent.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the xerox copies filed on 17.8.1992 had been rejected merely on the ground that the

Petitioner had failed to produce the originals of the said documents. To substantiate this plea, he has cited two judgments. The first judgment is

reported in 1996(2) SLR 868 (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment is this:

Again while rejecting SI. Nos. 5,7,10,13 & 14, the Committee has commented that ""there is no room for the presumption that the certificate has

been correctly issued"". We are not able to appreciate this approach of the Committee in rejecting the certificates in the absence of any attempt on

the side of the Government to suspect the correctness/genuineness of the documents produced by the Appellant.

In yet another judgment in writ petition No. 1861 of 1997 rendered by Hon''ble Sathasivam, J. dated 11.12.1998, it is observed as follows:

Even though the documents produced by the learned Counsel are only xerox copies, the same cannot be rejected on the ground that they are

xerox copies. These are all valid documents, since issued by the Government and notified in the District Gazette. While such is the position, the

second Respondent has any doubt he could have summoned the original records and verified the same.

In the first decision, the Apex Court while dealing with the similar case, would observe that the zerox copy of the caste certificate issued by the

Sub Divisional Magistrate. Nashik (Sl. No. 5), zerox copy of the caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Nagpure (Sl. No. 7), zerox

copy of the caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Kopargaon (Sl. No. 10), zerox copy of the caste certificate issued by the District

Magistrate, Great Bombay (Sl. No. 13) and zerox copy of the certificate of validity issued by the Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune (Sl.

No. 14) cannot be rejected on the mere presumption that those certificates would not have been correctly issued.

When the observation made by the authority that those certificates were issued in a very casual manner, the Supreme Court would observe

that the caste certificate issued to the applicant as well as his father was not casually but based on the other certificates. Though the admissibility of

the xerox copy had not been gone into in this decision, the Supreme Court would categorically assert that the said documents must have been

considered as they are relevant documents.

In the same way, Hon''ble Sathasivam, J. also following the above said judgment, would clearly hold in W.P. No. 1861 of 1997 that xerox

copies cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they are xerox copies, especially when those documents were issued by the Government and

notified in the District Gazette. The learned single Judge also has gone to the extent of saying that if there is any doubt, the authority concerned

must have sent for the original records and verified the same. Therefore, it can be very well concluded that the xerox copies cannot be rejected

simply because they are xerox copies.

In the light of the above principle, let us now go into reasoning given by the impugned authority for rejecting the same, which is as follows:

Finally she appeared for the enquiry on 17.8.1992 and produced certain xerox copy of documents in support of her community. She has neither

produced original or true copy of documents, nor any witnesses thereof during verification enquiry. Most of the xerox copy of documents

produced by the individual are in no way connected to her or to her family. The mere production of xerox copy of documents cannot be taken as

evidence unless they are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The above observation would clearly show that these documents have been rejected not merely because originals were not produced but on

the ground that most of the xerox copies of the documents produced by her are in no way connected to her or to her family. If those xerox copies

were rejected merely on the ground that they are xerox copies, it can be contended that it is not a proper ground. But, the main grounds mentioned

in the impugned order is that the xerox copy of documents produced by the Petitioner are not vital and relevant documents to decide the issue.

Under those circumstances, let us now come to the question of relevancy with reference to the documents produced by her on 17.8.1992

when she appeared before the Collector, the first Respondent.

In the affidavit in the writ petition, she has not given any details and nature of the documents, but in the typed set, she has filed a copy of the

explanation dated 2.3.1992 sent to the Collector. In the said copy, there is a reference about 30 documents. But, the file produced by the first

Respondent before this Court would only show 7 documents were produced before the Collector on 17.8.1992, which are these.

1) Letter by District Harijan Welfare Officer, Coimbatore to the Director of Harijan and Tribal Welfare, Madras, dated 12.9.1976.

2) The sale deed dated 16.6.1966.

3) The sale deed dated 25.2.1974.

4) Letter by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur of the District Collector. Salem, dated 6.6.1978.

5) Letter by the District Backward Welfare Officer. Salem to the Divisional Engineer, Erode, dated 8.9.1977.

6) Community certificate issued in favour of one Ramanujam.

7) Letter by the Tahsildar, Mettur dated 1.9.1997.

The document No. 1 is a letter from the District Harijan Welfare Officer to the Director of Harijan and Tribal Welfare dated 12.9.1976

mentioning that the Konda Reddy community has been included in the list of Scheduled Tribes and the said community people are living in several

villages in Coimbatore District. This is a general instruction. So, this document would not be considered as a relevant document in favour of the

Petitioner.

The second document is the sale deed executed on 16.6.1966 by one Chinnasamy Achari in favour of Tammanna Reddiar belonging to

Konda Reddiar and the third document is the partition deed executed on 25.2.1974 among one Nagarajan, Ramachandran and Mahalingam

belonging to Konda Raddy. In these documents, there is no reference about the Petitioner or the Petitioner''s father.

The fourth document would relate to the report sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur to the District Collector, Salem. In this report, it

is stated that in Kolathur, Pannavadi, Kannamoochi and Aalamarathupatti villages, no Konda Reddy people are living but only Reddiar community

people are living. So, this document also would not be a relevant and useful document in favour of the Petitioner.

The document Nos. 5,6 and 7 would relate to the community certificate issued in favour of one Ramanujam in the year 1997. According to the

Petitioner, the community certificate issued to one Ramanujam declaring him as Konda Reddy community is her own brother. In this context, we

have to see whether these documents would be relevant and vital documents.

As has been stated above, the initial enquiry was conducted by the second Respondent in pursuance of a direction given by the first

Respondent. Though several notices were received from the Office of the second Respondent through Tahsildar and the same had been admittedly

received by the Petitioner, she did not appear for enquiry. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent a report after collecting the materials to

the Collector on 29.12.1989.

On receipt of the enquiry records and the report, as noted above, the show cause notice was sent to the Petitioner by the Collector.

Thereafter, on the request of the Petitioner, the enquiry report as well as other records were furnished to her. Therefore, the Petitioner was called

upon to give explanation and to adduce evidence to disprove the findings given in the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Admittedly, the

entire materials were available with her, as the entire records were furnished to her.

On going through the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report which is available in the file would give the following factors:

(1) The father of the Petitioner A.S. Sen Reddiar of Kolathur village belongs to Hindu Reddiar community which is classified as Forward

Community.

(2) The elder son of Thiru. A.S. Sen Reddiar by name S. Chennakrishnan is now working as a Village Administrative Officer, Palamalai Village in

Mettur Taluk. In his S.S.L.C. Book dated 23.7.1985 issued by the District Educational Officer, Salem, the religion and caste have been mentioned

as Hindu Reddy. In his Service Register, it is noted as a Forward Community.

(3) A.S. Sen Reddiar, the father of the Petitioner sold an extent of 4.14 acres of land in Kolathur Village as per document No. 422/1965 dated

8.3.1965. In the said document, it is noted that the community of A.S. Sen Reddiar is ""Reddiar"".

(4) The first community certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner in the year 1974. The said certificate was issued by Tahsildar on the basis

of recommendation by the Village Administrative Officer of Kolathur Village. The Village Administrative Officer who recommended the Petitioner

as belonging to the Konda Reddy community is none other than her brother S. Chennakrishnan, while he was working as Village Munsif.

(5) One Ramanujam working in Telegraph Department, Erode has obtained the Konda Reddy community certificate. But, he has not produced his

S.S.L.C. Book. In the first page of the S.S.L.C Book relating to the Petitioner produced by the Indian Overseas Bank, the caste of the Petitioner

is noted as ""No"" against the column ""SC/ST/MBC"".

These things would clearly show that the Petitioner was able to get the first certificate in 1974 on the basis of the recommendation by her

brother Chennakrishnan as Village Munsif, even though his brother''s S.S.L.C. Book and Service Register would show that he belongs to Reddiar

community, a forward community. Admittedly, these thing have not been controverted in the enquiry by producing contra evidence by the

Petitioner.

As indicated above, the documents 5 to 7 produced by the Petitioner relating to her brother Ramanujam would not be taken to hold that she

belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The disturbing feature which we notice in this case is that the Village Munsif who is admittedly belonging to forward

community, till date whose name has been registered as a Reddiar and person belonging to forward community in the S.S.L.C. Book and in the

Service Register had falsely recommended that the Petitioner (his own sister) was belonging to Konda Reddy, a Scheduled Tribe.

In the light of the above circumstances, let us see some of the authorities to see that the nature of the materials which were collected during the

enquiry and how far they could be taken note of and could be acted upon to decide the issue raised in this case.

In 1998 W.L.R. 448 (A. Arulanatha Krishnan and Anr. v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Veterinary & Animal Science University), it is held thus:

When a candidate applies before the Authorities to get a Certificate, he has to place all the materials before them to prove his eligibility. He cannot

simply wash off his hands by saying that the Authorities have issued a Certificate and that will be sufficient for all purposes. The Petitioners know

the caste to which they belong. It cannot be disputed that whenever a Department enumerates a group of Communities or Castes as Backward or

Most Backward, it takes into consideration various factors. When a candidate wants to get a Certificate, it is not a part of duty of the Government

to issue the Certificate, unless the candidate proves his eligibility for the same. It is on the basis of the claim that the Authorities have to make

enquiry. If no proper claim is made, the candidate also cannot come to Court and say that on the basis of the Certificate he is entitled to succeed,

nor can there be any question of presumption in such cases that all official acts are done in accordance with law. When the correctness or

otherwise of a Certificate is challenged, evidence will have to be adduced, de hors the Certificate. The question of disproving the same by

Government or the concerned Authority does not arise.

It is true as laid down in Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, the Competent Authority shall apply his mind

and consider all the relevant materials placed before him to record a finding. By a wrongful denial of the caste certificate, even the genuine

candidate would be deprived of the privileges conferred upon him by the Constitution. Therefore, greater care must be taken before granting or

cancelling any claim for caste certificate. In such circumstances, the Competent Authority cannot brush aside the documents or oral evidence, if

they are quite relevant. What is more important is relevancy.

In Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, , the Apex Court would express its anguish,

by mentioning that the appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine

Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates envisaged of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. By reason thereof, the

genuine candidates would be denied appointments to office or posts under a State instrumentalities.

In the said context, the Apex Court issued certain guidelines in the said decision as to how the certificate regarding the community has to be

issued and how the enquiries regarding the verification of the Community certificates have to be made. Their Lordships, as one of the main

guidelines, would specify that the parent, guardian, or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit, duly sworn and attested by the

Competent Gazetted Officer or Non-Gazetted Officer with particulars of castes and sub- castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes

or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. The

following is the relevant observation:

It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate to his child. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued

are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the

issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval which may be the following.

The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-

gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from

which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.

He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to

their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the ""candidate.

These principles have been reiterated in Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and another, .

Following the above Supreme Court''s decision, the Hon''ble S.S. Subramani, J. in the decision reported in 1998 W.L.R.448 (cited supra)

would observe as follows:

... The best evidence that they could have adduced before the authority is. how their parents were recognised in the Society, the prior records

of their parents to prove their caste and sub-caste, including the place of their nativity, etc.

According to the decisions cited supra, the best evidence would be how the Petitioner''s parents were recognised in the society and what are

all the prior records of her parents to establish her claim, including the place of nativity. Admittedly, those relevant materials are conspicuously

absent in this case. On the other hand, the brother of the Petitioner, who is the Village Administrative Officer, has been found to be Reddiar

community being a forward community. This factor has not been denied by the Petitioner. As noted above, even though the Petitioner''s brother

was certified to be belonged to the forward community, he made a recommendation in 1974 certifying that his sister, the Petitioner herein belongs

to Konda Roddy, a Schedule Tribe Community. In such a situation non-production of the relevant materials with reference to the recognition of the

Petitioner''s parents in the society would assume significance.

It is obvious that the Constitution intended to give benefit of social and economic advancement, empowerment and social equality of status, by

providing reservation in services of the State and in education by operation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, only the

persons who are the members of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes alone are entitled to the above benefit. But. now-a-days. it is seen

that in order to secure false social status as a Scheduled Tribe, the plain man plays fraud on the Constitution to secure admission or appointment to

a pose or office under the State or its instrumentalities. On going through the facts of case, it is clear that this is one such example.

A reading of the relevant records and file would clearly reveal that the Petitioner was never ready to appear before the Revenue Divisional

Officer in the initial enquiry or before the Collector. As a matter of fact, when the letter was sent by the Petitioner to the Collector asking for the

copies of the documents including the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report, it was with promptness furnished to the Petitioner. Even thereafter, she

did not come and appear before the Collector, In the meantime, she had also gone abroad. This was also not intimated to the Collector even

though she knew that enquiry was pending. After coming to know that she came back to India, the Collector sent a notice to the Petitioner asking

her to appear for the enquiry before the Collector. At last, she appeared on 17.8.1992 and filed the various xerox copies, as indicated above, out

of which most of the documents are irrelevant and the other document also was not helpful to the Petitioner for deciding the issue. Thus, it is clear

that no evidence was adduced by the Petitioner controverting the materials found in the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report.

As earlier pointed out, in her brother''s certificate, it is mentioned that her brother Chennakrishnan is the son of A.S. Sen Reddiar and in his

S.S.L.C. Book, the religion and caste have been mentioned as Hindu Reddy and in his Service Register, it is noted as a forward community.

Moreover, in the sale deed executed by the Petitioner''s father A.S. Sen Reddiar dated 8.3.1965, the community of A.S. Sen Reddiar is

mentioned as ""Reddiar"". Thus, it is clear that the best evidence, as pointed out by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, that her parents were

recognised as Scheduled tribe is thoroughly lacking in this case. On the contrary, the materials found in the Revenue Divisional Officer''s report

would show that both the father and brother of the Petitioner were recognised as Reddiars belonging to the forward community.

Taking into consideration the entire matter, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, I cannot but come

to the conclusion that the authorities concerned had given full opportunities to the Petitioner to establish her community and thereafter, passed the

impugned order holding that the Petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community and as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned

order either in the terms of reasonings or in the aspect of adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice.

At this juncture, it should be remembered that the Collector does not decide the matter like a trial in a suit. What he did is an enquiry,

complying with the required principles of natural and rational justice. On going through the records and the impugned order, the Collector after due

consideration of the relevant evidence placed by the Petitioner, has, in my view, correctly concluded that the Petitioner is not a member of the

Scheduled Tribe. Hence, this Court, which is not a Court of appeal to appreciate the evidence, does not find any valid ground to interfere with the

impugned order.

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.