?: Ve!\atg Kumar v. The_State of A.P.

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: to declare the order passed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, daled 6.12.2014 in OA No.2147 of 2012 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust apart from violative of principles of natural justice and against the settled law and ii. to consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to continue the petitioner In service as Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector in Zone-V pursuant to his selection as Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector. l.A. NO: 2OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 51785 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 6.12.2014 in OA No.2147 of 2012. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2015(WPMP. NO:.25272 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim direction granted on 31 .12.2O14 and which has been extended from time to time, In the above writ petition. tA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between:

#1. The State of Telangana, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

#2. The Transport Commissioner, State of Telangana, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND

#1. tvlohd. Murtuja Ali Ahmed, s/o [/ohd. Jameel Ahmed, Aged 38 years, Occ: Assistant Motor Vehicle lnspector, Rl/o Kothapalli village, Jamrnikunta lVlandal, Karimnagar District. ...RESPOI DENT/PETITIONER 2. The Telangana State Public Service Commission, I\4." Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary

#3. The Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar 4. P.Venkata Kumar, s/o late P.Satyana rayana, Advocit:, R/o H.No.12-1'1- 1580, Boudhnagar, Warasiguda, Hyderabad-6'1

#5. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Purani Hav -. i, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. (Proposed Party) (Cause Title amended as per Court Order dated 31 .12.2) I +.) (Respondents No.2 to 5 are not necessary parties to this retition) ...RESPONDEI{ TS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir; rrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl lay be pleased to vacate the lnterim Orders (Suspension) dated 31 .12.2O14 pas,r ed in WP.No.41356 of 2014. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. VIDYA SAGAR, SENIOR (: IUNSEL REPRESENTING SMT. K. UDAYA -T RI Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2 & 4: GP FOR SERVICI: ; - lll Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GUTHA MALLIKARJL NA RAO, STANDING COUNSEI- Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI M. SURENDER RAO. ;ENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M. SRIl IVASA RAO The Court made the following: COMMON OROER 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WP.Nos.29654 of 2Ol3 and 41356 ol2OL4 Dt.O4o 2.2026 WP.No. 29 654 of 2Ol3 Between: P.Venkata Kumar The State of AP (presently State of Telangana) and two others. WP.No.4135 6 of 2OL4 Betuteen'. Mohd. Murtuja Ali Ahmed The State of Telalgana and five others .... Petitioner ..Respondents Petitioner . . . Respondents COMM ON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Suddalo' Chalapathi Rao) Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same cause of action between the same parties, and as the issues involved in both the writ petitions are interconnected and related to each other, both the matters aJe taken up together and are 2 being disposed of by this common order. F tr the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the partl(.r are referred to as arrayed in W.p. No.29654 of 2012, which rs treated as the lead writ petition. WP.No.29654 of 2073 2. This Writ petit.ion is filed to issue a \ I rt_ or order or direction more particularly one in the nat _ -3 of w rit of maldamus by calling for records relating to z rLd connected with G.O.Ms.No.1g, Backward Classes \Melfare (C) Department, dt.O4.O9.2OI3 issued by the l"r r,:;pondent and set aside the same and consequently to decl:u.r that the 3.a respondent does not belong to Dudekula comnt I rity and also r,r,ith a further direction to the respondents to tal<: appropriate steps against the 3.d respondent and the offici1 s,, u.ho have issued the caste certificate to the 3.a respondent. WP.No.41356 of 2074

#3. This Writ petition is filed by the 3.d r_i r pondenr Wp.No.29654 of 2OI3 challenging the order pzr sed bv the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderair rd(for short .the ApATJ in OA.No.214Z of 2012 dt.O6.t2.2}t, as illegal, -rv ) 3 arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natura-l justice arld consequently set aside the same by directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner in service as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (AMVI) in Zone V pursuant to his selection as such. The brief facts of the case :

#4. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission(APPsc) by Notification No.45/2008, dt.30. 12.2OO8 invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Both the petitioner and the 3.d respondent, belonging to Zone-Y, both competed for selection under the BC-B(Dudekula) category. The 3.d respondent was selected and appointed to the said post of AMVI under the category of BC-B (Dudekula) community certificate and has been discharging his duties as such.

#5. The petitioner thereafter submitted a complaint to the District Collector-2"d respondent alleging that the 3'd respondent did not belong to Dudekula Community and had obtained the BC-B certil-rcate by suppressing material facts r?! 4 and on false declarations before the Tahsildar, . zrmmikunta It alleged that the 3.d respondent actuall , belonged to Muslim community, which falls under the ( rlten Category (OC), and that by misrepresentation, he r r:cured BC_B Certilicate and was appointed under BC-B c uota, ttrereby depriving the petitioner, who was next in mer. [, of selection belonging to the very same communitv BC_B.

#6. The District Collector, basing on the com: i nt, referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Commit ee headed by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar, and during thr enquir1,, the Tahsildar, Jammikunta, was directed to verifl. t .re ciaim and submit a report, a,d arso the reports were also c.i llecl from the Revenue Divisional Officer and thereby approt riate notices were issued to the 3'd respondent, afforc i ,tg him an opportunity to produce documentary evidence ir support of his claim to prove that he belongs to Dudekul:i ,rommunity. Further, as the 3.a respondent failed to appeeu and did not produce any documents to the satisfaction of t}r r 2uth61i1isg and solely basing on the material collected durins lhe enquiry forwarded the report to the District Collector, (arimnagar, 5 stating that the claim of the 3'd respondent was not substantiated by any evidence. Further, the District Collector, relying upon the reports of the DLSC and other material on record, cancelled the BC-B community certificate issued to the

3.d respondent uide Notification in R.DisNo-C4/ 1222/2012, dt:.5.09.2012.

#7. Assailing the said cancellation, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the l"t resPondent-Government contending that the prescribed procedure had not been followed by the 2"d and 3'd respondents and that he had not been afforded adequate opportunity. It was further urged that no proper enquiry was conducted by the authorities and that the cancellation was based mainly on the caste status of his maternal uncle and certain school records, and contended that the said enquiry has not conclusively established that the 3'd respondent belonged to the Muslim community and not BC-B Category. It was also asserted that the District Collector had cancelled the certificate without undertaking a comprehensive enquiry in the native village, from which the

3.d respondent hails from. 6 1rya. a\

#8. The petitioner, who was arrayed as a par.. respondent in the said appeal, has vehemently opposed the s;r id contentions by asserting that the procedure pre,;:ribed under G.O.Ms.No.18, dt.04.09.2013 and the applicatir: rules as on the said d ate have been strictly followt:<l and further contended that the reports of the Mandal Reve: ;e Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, clearly establislL .rl that the 3.a respondent did not belong to the Dudekula Cc mmunity and belonged to Muslim Community. It was also ,: rntended that the father of the 3r(l respondent, who was also cc n.tended to be working as Pump Mechanic in the office of t re EE, RWS, Karimnagar, at the relevant point, his sr: r,ice records established tl-rat he was Muslim by religion an c1 r .as appointed in the Open Category and that the maternal u- :le of the 3,a respondent was also appointed as AMVI unrl :r the BC-E (Muslim) category under the creamy layer, thereby the petitioner contended that the action taken b., thc District Collector in cancelling the certilicate issuecL to the 3.d respondent, was rralid. -/ 7

#9. The 1.t respondent-Government, after affording opportunity to both parties and upon consideratiorr of the material available on record, has passed the impugned orders holding out that the 2.4 respondent-District Collector had erred in cancelling the community certificate of the 3.a respondent without following the due procedure contemplated under law and accordingly set aside the cancellation order by issuing G.O.Ms.No.18, Backward Classes Welfare (C) Department, dt.04.09.2013. The said Government Order is challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. lO. Further, during the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner approached the APAT by filing O.A. No.2l47 of 2O 12 seeking a direction to the respondents-authorities to conduct an enquiry into the social status of the 3'd respondent and to cancel his appointment, and to appoint the petitioner as AMVI in Zone-V with all consequential beneftts alleging that the failure of the authorities to verify the social status of the

3.d respondent prior to appointment was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and deprived the petitioner/applicant of his legitimate right to be appointed under the post of AMVI. 8 1 1 . The learned APAT, after hearing both the I ,arties, allowed the said Original Application and directed the .r:spondents to cancel the appointment of the 3.d respondent ,r.rd appoint the petitioner as AMVI in Zone-v under the local cr -egory, subject to the outcome of W.p. No.29654 of 2OI2. TLr said order of the Tribunal is under challenge in W.p. No.4l3:5 of 2Ol4 hled by the 3.d respondent and this Court initially r uspended the proceedings and is pending adjudication before t ris Court.

#12. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao learned Sir nior Counsel representing Sri M.Srinivas Rao, counsel f<rr. petitioner 1n WP.No.29654 of 2013 and 5th respondent in W. ) No.41356 of 2014, and Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned S: rior Counsel representing Smt K. Udaya Sri, learned co _ rrsel for 3.a respondent 1n WP.No.29654 of 2013 and retitioner in WP.No.4l 356 of 2014. CONTENTI ONS:

#13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for rhe petitioner in the lead writ petition mainly contended hat the 3.a respondent, rn.ho admittedly belonged to tre Muslim community and not beloned to the Dudekula corr raunity, had w' 9 deliberately suppressed this materia-l fact and furnished false information before the Tahsildar, Jammikunta, thereby fraudulently secured a BC-B community certificate and obtained appointment under BC-B category. In support of this ,contention, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the service record of the father of the 3'd respondent, who was employed in the lrrigation Depa-rtment and that his service records unequivocally reflected his community status as Muslim. It was further urged that the maternal uncle of the 3'a respondent, who also belonged to the sarne Muslim Community, was appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector under the very same notification, but under the BC- E (Muslim) category. Placing reliance on these facts, it was asserted that the 3'd respondent belongs to Muslim Community and did not belong to the Dudekula community and had obtained the BC-B certificate by misrepresentation and false declarations.

#14. It was further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the 2"d respondent, after conducting a proper enquiry and affording sufficient opportunity to the 3.d respondent, had 10 \ \ rightly cancelled the BC B community certifica , issued to him by follou, ing the procedure under the reler I -nt rules, and despite being granted adequate opportur ity, the 3.d respondent failed to appear either before the 2r),i r.espondent or the District Level Scrutiny Committee and fir I :,i to produce any reliable material to substantiate his craim rr show that he belongs to Dudekula Community. It was furll t:r contended that the 1 "t respondent, u,ithout due apprc < i.ation of the factual matrix, in the absence of any sustainabl: lyounds, had erroneously interfered with the well-reasoned o- ler passed by the 2"a respondent ald the same is contrzu r to law and procedure and suflers from serious legal infirm I ies, and thus liable to be set aside.

#15. Per contra., the learned Senior Counsel apP :aring for the 3.d respondent contended that the 2.d respor( ent has not followed the procedure mandated undc. law uid.e G.O.Ms.No.18, Backward Classes Welfare (C) Department, dt.04.09.2013. It was submitted that thr Tahsildar, Jammikunta, submitted a report dt.l2.O3.2Ol2, r1,, cailing for the school records of the 3.a respondent, and iss,r rr:d a notice, 11 dt.30.04.2012 which was served on the mother of the 3'd respondent sought time as the 3'd respondent was not available and though the time rvas extended, as the 3'd respondent was not informed by his mother, as such he could not appear on the date of enquiry, and thus, it is contended that the enquiry was concluded and a fair opportunity was given and in a case of this nature, the 2"d respondent ought to have seen that the notices are served upon the proper person'

#16. It was further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, merely stated that the father of the 3'a respondent was employed in the lrrigation Department and that his service records reflected his caste as "Fakheer Muslim". On sole basis of this information, the District Level Committee recommended for cancellation of the certihcate and the District Collector proceeded to issue the order dt. 15.09.2012, without proper appreciation of the facts and reports, and grossly erred in holding that the 3'd respondent had fraudulently obta-rned a BC-B communit5r certihcate and thereby secured selection to the post of AMVI, without I2 undertaking an independent and comprehens.r c assessment of the factual matrix of the case 17 . The learned Senior Counsel also conte - c ed that the community certificate of the 3.a respondent ha r been issued prior to the enforcement of the A.p. (SC, ST & B( s) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 arr, L the Rules of 1997, atd therefore, by virtue of Section 21 o' the said Act, the certificate ought to have been treated as valic. The leanred Senior Counsel placed reliance on the reports o. Lhe Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Authority, which i r,Cicated that the surname of the 3.d respondent correspol-i .t :d rvith that commonly associated with the Dudekuia comrnl nitv, namely 'Mohammad". It was also submitted that the far rer of the 3.d respondent had entered government service rrior to the inclusion of the Dudekula community .in the lis of Backr,r,ard Classes and that, at the relevant point of time, ttere was no mandatory requirement to disclose caste particu l, -:.s in service records, but hornever, the 2na respondent 5qls r got carried away by the same and without proper verificaticr has passed the orders by cancelling the certificate. { 13

#18. It was further contended that the caste of the maternal uncle could not be determinative of the socia-l status of the 3'd respondent and more pa-rticularly, Dedekula Caste people believe and practice Islam for many reasons. It was asserted that while the mother of the 3'a respondent belonged to the Fakheer Muslim community, the father belonged to the Dudekula community, ard this crucia,l distinction was neither properly examined by the 2"d respondent nor by the District Level Scrutiny Committee. It vr''as also contended that prior to the father of the 3'd respondent entering government service, there was no statutory obligation to produce caste certihcate in the service registers for recording the same and further it was contended that no proper field-level or village-level enquiry was conducted to verify the social status of the 3'd respondent, for reaching proper conclusion.

#19. It was a-lso contended that the State Government had amended the relevant provisions by including a BC-E category for persons prolessing Islarn who are able to establish that they belong to the Dudekula communit5r, and thus, this aspect T4 would clinchingry prove that the 3.d respond.rr a,d his father belong to Dudekula Community

#20. On all these grounds, it was submitted 11. the learned Senior Counsel that the l"r respondent had ri 11_r tly exercised its appellate jurisdiction in setting aside the . aer of the 2.d respondent and that the petitioner failed to r:stablish any grounds warranting interference by this Cou r L ,,r,ith the well considered order passed by the lst respondent. .l.hus, prayed to dismiss W.p. No.29654 of 20t2 and to a.[ou, \ / p. No.41356 of 2Ol4 21 . We have given earnest consideration to r, submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel as well zr: the learned Government pleaders appearing for the respectiu: parties and perused the entire material on record. 22 Although both writ petitions were heard 1c1 e.ther, sr nce, the 1is in the subsequent writ petition is who I .. dependent upon the outcome of the lead u,rit petition : I the order impugned therein is merely a consequential orrk: arlsrng out of the proceedings in the lead writ petition, tf e sum ald substance of the contentions raised in the leacl ,'nt petition 9 15 would adequately cover and sub-serve the issues involved in the subsequent writ petition as rvell as both pertain to the appointment of the 3'a respondent under BC-B quota.

#23. From the factual matrix of the case and the riva-l submissions advanced, the following aspects emerge for consideration: (i) Whether the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent leading to cancellation of the BC-B communit5r certificate of the 3'a respondent was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Act 16 of 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder; (ii) Whether the 1't respondent was justified in setting aside the cancellation order without directing a fresh enquiry; and (iii) Whether the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal could be sustained when the very foundation is under challenge in the lead writ petition.

#24. Before delving into the matter, it is necessar5r to briefly refer to the provisions under the Act and Rules of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (Act 16/19931. ) 16 i

#25. Section 3 of the Act 16/1993 envisages l rat any person may appiy for a community certificate, which ;halt be issued by the competent authority after being sarr,;lied with the genuineness of claim. The provisions specifica L, envisage that a prescribed procedure must be followed befor<: irssuing such a certificate, and the said provision is reproduc,: I for reference as under: "1, ".,y :contesting "3. Application of a community certificate !r]"lLY, r,":g,l belon€ing t,, of the S<l ttturcd Casrcs, ucneduied 't'rtbes or Backward Classes may I order to claim the benefit of any reservation provided to i Castes, Tribes or Classes either for any public appointment c r lor admission into any educational institution 1., tfr. Stat,r or outside the State for the students of the State o. r.ry oth, I benefit under any special provisions made under clause (4r cr Articte 15 of the Constitution of India or for the pr.po". , r elective post in any local authority oi f.i .1..i vc prrsts in the Co-operative Institutions, make an applicatir,r in such form and in such manner as may te p..siiiteJ i; the competent authoritv for the issue of a community c.. t.r,". (2) Arry person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe may I rr tlie p*.po"L of claiming any benerrt or protection mea,r lcr Scheduled Tribes undcr aly notification, direction o. , - 1rtario., made under thc Fifth Schedule to the ConstitutiL r: of India or X::^..,".I Act, Rule,. Regulation or Order for tt, I tin.," being in Iorce ln the Scheduled Areas, make an applrr zLtior.r in such form and in such manner as may be pr.r: r-_ribt:d to the competent_ authority for the issue of communit i r:crtrricate. Explanation:- For the purposes of thi , section and section 13, Scheduled Areas, means the areas as dehned in paragraph 6 to the Schedule to the Constitutio- , ulrGr o.,r:Y { -/ t7

#26. Under Section 5, the District Collector may either on suo motu or on a written complaint, cancel the Caste Certificate after caliing for the records and enquiring into its correctness' Under Section 6, the caldidate may apply for a fresh community certificate and that the burden of proving belonging to a particular caste or tribe rests upon the claimalt. It is thus for the individual claiming a particular caste to establish the same, and not lor the complainant or enquiry officer to prove otherwise. Under Section 7(2) an appeal to the Government against the order of the District Collector passed under Section 5, empowering the Government to conhrm or set aside such orders' Sections 1O, 13, and 20 d.eal with penalties and confer pow6rs on the Government to make rules, which were framed under G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 12.O5.1997. Even Rule 6, similarly reinforces that the burden of proof rests on the claimant' 27 . Now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner filed a complaint alleging that the 3'd respondent had obtained a BC- B community certificate from the MRO, Jammikunta, by misrepresentation, claiming to be belong to the Dudekula 1 18 community, though he actually belonged 1r the Muslim community falling under the Open Categor.. . The District Collector entertained the compiaint and referr: I the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) I tr enquiry into the validity of the caste certificate.

#28. Pursuant thereto, the MRO, JammikrL. rr:a, by letter, dt.02.03.2012, requested the concerned auth: -ity to furnish details. Notices were issued to the 3.d responder rt_ cailing upon him to produce relevant documents. The notic. vuas served on the mother of the 3.a respondent, as he was nrt avajlable. On

05.O3.2O12, the mother of the 3.a respondent rr rpeared before the MRO ald sought time to produce documer ts, rvhich was granted till 08.03.2012. However, on the said d, i:, neither the 3.d respondent nor his mother produced any dc cuments, and the MRO basing on the above facts and : r.cumstances, submitted a report drawing an adverse inferenr e that the 3.d respondent had faiied to produce aly proof/rl rcuments to establish that he belonged to BC_B Dudekula cor rmunity.

#29. The DLSC, under the Chairmanship ri. the Joint Collector, addressed a letter to the Headmastt:r, ZpHS Boys 7 19 School, Jammikunta to send the school records and the said records indicated that the religion of the 3'd respondent was Muslim arld that he belonged to a Forward Catcgory(FC), and his father's narne was shown as Jameel Ahmed. On the basis of the said records, the MRO concluded that the 3'd respondent did not belong to BC-B Dudekula community and communicated the same to the District Collector uide letter dated 72.03.2012.

#30. ThereaJter, the 2'd respondent referred the matter to the DLSC in Aprll, 2012, which in turn was referred it to the Revenue Divisional Officer(RDO), Karimnagar. The RDO conducted an enquiry and obtained details from the Irrigation Department as the father of the 3'a respondent was employed in Irrigation Department. Further, the service records revealed that the father of the 3'a respondent belongcd to Muslim community, which is under OC category' It u'as also noted that the surnatne of the 3'd respondent i.e', Mohammad also tallied with the Dudekula community, but however, the school records of the 3.d respondent and along with service records of the father did not reflect BC-B status. It was further noticed 20 that the matcrnal uncle of the 3.d respori appointed as AMVI under BC_E (Muslinr lent was also crearny layer category under the very sarne notification. On the District Level Service Committee rec ( cancellation and the 2"d respondent cancelled certificate issued to the 3.d responde nt, uid.e R.DisNo.C4l t222 / 2012, dt. 15.09.2012, which -hese grounds, mmended for he community \otification in was assailed before the 1"r respondent.

#31. The 1"t respondent, after considering the ),)ntentions of both sides, observed that none of the a _ L.horities had conducted a detailed enquiry in the native vilt rge of ttre 3rd respondent, as required under Secti on L4 of the relevant Rules. It was further observed that the frlt ily tree was examined only up to the paternar gra, dfathe- rand without properly appreciating the scope of pedigree en( Llirv, the 2.d respondent passcd orders. The 1"t respondent hr ld that caste determination czrnnot be made solely on the bir; ts of service records of the father or the caste of the materrt rl uncle and further, the sen ice book of the father did no . disclose his social status and that mere entry of mother torlfi re as ..Urdu,, t / 2t cannot be treated as al indication of forward caste status. In the absence of a proper village-level enquiry, the 1"t respondent concluded that the cardinal principles of fair enquiry as envisaged under the Andhra pradesh (SC, ST and BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules, 1997 were not followed by the 2.d respondent.

#32. Further, the l"t respondent observed that there was no conclusive material to establish that the 3..r respondent belonged to Muslim community a-lone and noted that Dudekula community, though classified under BC-B, follows Muslim religious practices. On these grounds, the 1"t respondent set aside the orders passed by the 2nd respondent.

#33. The main ground on which the proceedings of the 2",r respondent is assailed is that the 3.a respondent has not produced proper material to prove that he belonged to BC_B Category despite being afforded opportuni[z and also failed to produce satisfactory material to conclusively establish that he belonged to the BC-B Dudekula community. 22 r', r{.-1!1'-:

#34. Evidently, the notice was served on the mot ter of the 3.a respondent though she requested time, in a rr a tter of this nature, the 2"a respondent ought to have takerr a1l steps for service of notice on the 3.d respondent by all r( €rns and the service affected is not proper. However, mere n() r-production of documents cannot, by itself, justify canci llation of a community certihcate rvithout conducting a c: rrprehensive enquiry, particularly one involving village-level r., rifi6a1ior, ." mandated by law. When a community certificatr i:s cancelled, the same must be supported by cogent evidence ; t:qually, the basis on which the certificate was initiatty rs r r.red by the competent authority must also be examined uis-a ri-s service of proper notice on the affected party.

#35. In the present case, the cancellation rvas : lsed mainly on inferences drawn from the service records of he father of the 3,a respondent and the social status of the me tcrnal uncle of the 3.d respondent. Mere inferences, without pr rper village- Ievel enquiry and without exarnining the overa_ll r ocial status of the family, cannot form the basis for canci I ation of a communit5r certificate, especially when such ce r Lr:ellation is 7 sought at the instance of a rival claimant that too, when no proper service is a-ffected on the 3.d respondent. At the same time, the 1"t respondent, having found that the enquiry conducted rvas defective ought to have remanded the matter for fresh enquiry by giving proper opportunity to the aifected party and also the writ petitioner and taking into account a-11 the material placed on either side instead of conclusively deciding the issue, by setting aside the orders of the 2'a respondent as being vitiated by procedure and law

#36. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it is a fit case to set aside the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents ald remand the matter for fresh and proper enquiry by the 2.d respondent by following due process of iaw

#37. In view of the above findings, the orders passed by the l"t respondent ald the 2'd respondent are both set aside, and the matter is remanded to the 2'd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry into the complaint of the petitioner for cancellation of the caste/community certificate issued to the

3.d respondent under BC-B Category, in accordance with law, i { after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 3'd 24 e respondent, and to pass appropriate orders I :rsed on the materia-l placed on record.

#38. Consequently, in view ol the remand of thr r;sue relating to the caste certificate of the 3.a responderr to the 2.d respondent for fresh consideration, the orde: passed in O.A.No.2147 of 2072 dated 06.07.2014 on the .i r: of the A.p. Administrative Tribunal shall stand set aside.

#39. Accordingly, the writ petition Wp.No.296ti l. of 2013 is partly allowed and the r.r,-rit petition 41356 of 2O14. is a1lowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitior s; pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- II.PONNA KRISHNA ASSI! TANT REGISTRAR \ l JECTION OFFICER c) )epartment, State of //TRUE COPY// To \ '1. The Principal Secretary, Backward Classes Welfa Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 Hyderabad. Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

#2. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Transport, . The Transport Commissioner, State of Telangana, Khair i .) . The Secretary, Telangana State Public Service Con r . The Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. . One CC to SRI M. SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] . One CC to SMT. K. UDAYA SRl, Advocate [OPUC] . Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court foi the li . Two CCs to GP for Services-lll, High Court for the St Hyderabad. [OUT] 5 6 7 B I Hyderabad. [OUT]

#0. One CC to SRI GUTHA IVALLTKARJUNA RAO, Standinls 1.One CC toSRl P.S. RAJASEKHAR, S.C. forTSPSC [OFil 2.Two CD Copies {,)ads and Buildings bad, Hyderabad. rission, [\rl.J. Road, ate of Telangana at rle of Telangana at lounsel [OPUC] r(ll 1 1 1 MP ,\c" IIIGH COURT DATE ):0610212026 \--\ lii) ( )'l 'irr sliit\. *'i', I Ii2126 ?lj frr? ,:!-12:Pil COMI]/ION ORDER W.P. Nos.29654 OF 2013 AND 41 356 OF 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P.No.296l i4 OF 2013 & ALLOWING THE W.P.No.41356 OF 2014 6 , \aL r4