Allowed

Miss Jayanthi Bisai v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Nov 2013WP/32426/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenged an endorsement rejecting caste certificates for the Bentho Oriya community. The court set aside the endorsement for violating principles of natural justice and misinterpreting a prior order. It directed the authority to share the enquiry report with petitioners for objections before conducting a fresh enquiry and passing a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement set aside; direction to furnish enquiry report within one week; permission to submit objections; direction to conduct detailed enquiry and pass a speaking order.

Miss Jayanthi Bisai Vs Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32426 of 2013

¶2

Date: 13.11.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Miss Jayanthi Bisai and another. .. Petitioners and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 3 others. .. Respondents

¶5

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. M. Karuna Sagar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP for Revenue

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside endorsement in Rc.No.743/2013/C1, dated 18.10.2013, of respondent No.3.

¶8

This case has a previous background. Complaining that the Tahsildar concerned was not issuing caste certificates to the petitioners as belonging to ‘Bentho Oriya’ community, the petitioners filed W.P.No.17781 of 2013. This Court has considered the grievance of the petitioners with reference to two memos, vide memo No.883/CV.2/2007 dated 25.07.2007 and memo No.883/CV.2/2007 dated 21.05.2009, under which the respondents sought to take shelter for not issuing the caste certificates for Bentho Oriya community people, and observed as under:

¶9

“A perusal of the above two memos would clearly show that on the representations given by Srikakulam District Bentho Oriya Association and also certain individuals belonging to the said community to the effect that the students belonging to Bentho Oriya caste and hailing from Srikakulam District are being harassed by the officials on the suspicion that they have obtained false Bentho Oriya community certificates and that even the genuine persons belonging to the said community are suffering. In that context, respondent No.1 issued the abovementioned two memos in order to protect the interests of the genuine Bentho Oriya community persons. The purported order of status quo contained in the memo dated 21.05.2009 restrains the officials from canceling the Bentho Oriya caste certificates already issued and the same does not cause any impediment for respondent No.4 to consider the genuine claims of the persons belonging to Bentho Oriya community and issue community certificates in their favour.”

¶10

This Court has, accordingly, directed respondent No.4 therein (Tahsildar) to consider the claims of the petitioners on their making applications in writing for issuance of community certificates and shall decide the same based on the material that may be submitted by them. It was further directed that if respondent No.4 is satisfied that the petitioners belong to Bentho Oriya community, he shall issue caste certificates in their favour and that in a converse case, he shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioners.

¶11

In purported compliance of the above-mentioned order of this Court, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned endorsement, which reads as under:-

¶12

“The applicant Sri Vedavara Bisai S/o Late Ananda Bisai of Chinaamudalaputtuga Village of Kanchili Mandal is hereby informed that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali submitted his enquiry report in the reference 1^st cited informing that as per recorded evidence the petitioner belongs to ‘Vaddi’ or ‘Odiya’ caste but not ‘Bentho Oriya’ and hence the request of the petitioner for issue of Bentho Oriya caste certificates to his daughters cannot be considered.

¶13

The Government have not even issued any specific orders for issue of Bentho Oriya caste certificates in the District. Until receipt of orders from the Government the sanction of certificates cannot be considered at District Level.”

¶14

At the hearing, it is clarified that since respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority for issuance of caste certificate for Bentho Oriya community, his superior i.e., respondent

¶15

No.3 has issued the impugned endorsement, though a direction was issued by this Court to the Tahsildar to take a decision. This Court is convinced with this explanation in this regard.

¶16

A perusal of the impugned endorsement would show that respondent No.4 has submitted the enquiry report on 05.08.2013, informing that as per the evidence recorded by him, the petitioner belongs to ‘Vaddi’ or ‘Odiya’ caste, but not ‘Bentho Oriya’ and hence the petitioner’s request for grant of caste certificates to his two daughters cannot be considered. In the 2^nd para of the endorsement, it is stated that the Government has not issued any specific orders for issuance of Bentho Oriya caste certificates in the District.

¶17

From the reproduced portion of its order in W.P.No.17781 of 2013, this Court has directed that in the event the authority is not satisfied that the petitioners belong to Bentho Oriya caste, he shall pass a speaking order. Except referring to the purported report of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 has not discussed the claim of the petitioners and the material filed by them in its support that they belong to Bentho Oriya Caste. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that the purported report of respondent No.4, which constitutes the sole basis for rejection of their claim, was not furnished to them. The impugned endorsement also does not suggest that a copy of such report was furnished to the petitioners. As the report is not available before this Court, it is not known as to the basis on which respondent No.4 has opined that the petitioners do not belong to ‘Bentho Oriya’ community, but they belong to ‘Vaddi’ or ‘Odiya’ caste. Even assuming that the report has discussed the material, a duty is cast on respondent No.3 to first furnish a copy of the report to the petitioners and give detailed reasons for his coming to the conclusion that the

¶18

petitioners do not belong to ‘Bentho Oriya’ caste. As respondent No.3 failed to follow this fair procedure, it has not only denied proper opportunity to the petitioners to meet the findings in the report of respondent No.4, but also the opportunity to them to know the reasons for which he has denied the caste certificate to them. In the absence of reasons furnished by respondent No.3, even this Court cannot appreciate whether those reasons are sustainable or not. Therefore, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law.

¶19

As regards the 2^nd reason mentioned by respondent No.3 in the endorsement, the same is in the teeth of the specific observation made by this Court in its order, dated 24.06.2013, in W.P.No.17781 of 2013. Respondent No.3, holding the position of the Collector, is expected to carefully read the order of this Court before making the observation that the Government has not issued specific orders for issuance of ‘Bentho Oriya’ caste certificates. In the light of the observation made by this Court that the two memos referred to in the order would not in any manner preclude the authorities from issuing ‘Bentho Oriya’ caste certificates to genuine persons, the observation made in the 2^nd paragraph of the impugned endorsement by respondent No.3 betrays his lack of understanding of the order passed by this Court.

¶20

For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned endorsement is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to furnish a copy of the report of respondent No.4 to the petitioners within one week from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners are permitted to submit the objections to the report, along with the material on which they are claiming the status of ‘Bentho Oriya Caste’, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the report of respondent No.4. Within two weeks

¶21

thererafter, respondent No.3 shall hold a detailed enquiry, after notice to the petitioners, pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioners.

¶22

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed subject to the directions given hereinabove.

¶23

As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.40331 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶25

13^th November, 2013 v v

Miss Jayanthi Bisai v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Jayanthi Bisai v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Raj Kumar Surana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ganuguntla Veeramma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Pratap, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Malla Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja Educational Society Vs The National Council for Teacher Education

Vakeel Ahmed, S/o Jaleel Ahmed Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board