Bedar, Kiratka, Nishadi, Yellapi, Pedda Boya), Talayari and vs State is considered as backward class under Group-A and the

Order

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating issuance of G.O.Ms.No.61 dated

05.12.1996 of the Backward Classes Welfare (M) Department issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 340 of the Constitution of India and rescind the order of the Government in coming to the conclusion that ‘Yellapu’ and ‘Yellapi’ are one and the same caste and that ‘Yellapu’ is a synonym of ‘Yellapi’ caste occurring at Sl.No.24 under Group-A of the existing list of Backward Classes.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the Social Welfare.

3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed Anantharaman Commission to go into the matter of identifying the backward classes and the said Commission while classifying the backward classes, inter-alia stated in its report that there is ‘Telugu hunting caste’, living mostly in hills and outside inhabited places in temporary huts, described as ‘Bedar, Kirataka, Nishedi, Yellapi, Pedda Boyas, Talari and Chunduvallu’. In Rayalaseema area many of those community people were on police records as habitual thieves. Accepting recommendations of Anantaraman Commission, the Government by order dated 23.09.1970 recognized the aforesaid caste ‘Yellapi’ as backward class in Group A. The District Collector, Nizamabad, addressed a letter to the Government, indicating that the people of ‘Yellapu’ caste found in Telangana region was not the same as ‘Yellapi’ caste found in Rayalaseema area. It was found that mostly people residing at Armur Taluq of Nizamabad district, Jagityala, Metpally of Karimnagar district, who belong to Yellapu caste, were taking advance of Yellapi caste enumerated in the backward class. The Government issued Memo dated

26.12.1987 directing all the District Collectors in Telangana region that no such backward class certificate shall be given to any person belonging to Yellapi or Yellapu community on the ground that the Yellapi are ex-criminal tribe, who live mostly in hills and outside the inhabited places in temporary huts and living by hunting. The A.P. Commission for Backward classes after conducting thorough enquiry and examining various representatives and recording statements of several persons, formulated three points: (i) Whether ‘Yellapi caste of S.No.24 of Group-A of the existing list of backward classes of A.P. was a sub-caste or a sub-sect of ‘Valmiki (Boya)’ generally found in the Rayalaseema region of A.P. The Commission answered the said question in the negative; (ii) Whether a caste called ‘Yellapu’ whose members are generally found in ‘Telangana Region’ of A.P. is a synonym of ‘Yellapi’ of Sl.No.24 of Group-A of the existing list of backward classes of A.P. For this also, the Commission answered in negative. (iii) The Commission recommended that the term ‘Yellapi’ occurring At Sl.No.24 of Group-A of the existing list of backward classes to be deleted and further recommended that Yellapu in Telangana region was a separate and distinct caste and is not a synonym of Yellapi of Sl.No.24 of Group-A of the existing list of backward classes. The Commission recorded the statement of Dr. V.Sadananda Rao, who along with two others filed W.P.No.12503 of 1992 challenging the memo dated 26.12.1987 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In his statement, Dr. Sadananda Rao stated that his caste i s Yellapu and that they have marital relationships and family relationships with Munnuru Kapus, Telagas, Hazaris and Kapus and the social position of Yellapu caste in Telangana region was/is analogous to Munnuru Kapu, Hazari, Telega and Kapu of that region.

While matters stood thus, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.61 dated 05.12.1996 disagreeing with the recommendations of A.P. Commission for backward classes with regard to recommendation No.2. The petitioners alleged that the impugned G.O. was issued on political consideration, but not on the basis of the criteria of social and educational backwardness of Yellapus. According petitioners, Yellapus in Talangana region are rich, propertied class and highly educated, economically strong and socially advanced with marriages with forward communities. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.61 dated 05.12.1996 is thus, violative of Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, there is no enough material before the Government to come to the conclusion that Yellapu and Yellapi are one and the same.

4. The respondents filed counter contending in brief as follows: In terms of Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes Rules 1993 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.34 Social Welfare (P2) Department dated 26.02.1994, the Government have the absolute right either to accept or reject the report in full or a portion thereof submitted by the Commission and the decision of the Government on any issue shall be final. After careful examination based upon relevant material available, the Government came to the conclusion that ‘Yellapu’ and ‘Yellapi’ are one and the same caste and issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.61 Backward Classes Welfare (M) Department dated 05.12.1996. The census of 1961 furnished by the Government of India, ‘Boya’ is a de-notified tribe in A.P. and this community is known by different names in different parts and that ‘Yellapu’ and ‘Yellapi’ is also one of the synonyms of ‘Boya’ and that they denote one and the same community and marriage alliances were accepted among them. Several elected representatives of the public belonging to different political parties have represented to the Government that ‘Yellapi’ is also known as ‘Yellapu’ and ‘Yellapondlu’ in Telangana region. After careful examination of the issue, the Government came to the conclusion that ‘Yellapi’ and ‘Yellapu’ are one and the same. The Anantaraman Commission constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 1969, after detailed inquiry and investigation, made recommendations with regard educationally and socially backward classes. Accepting the said recommendations in toto, the Government of Andhra Pradesh by G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970 included several castes in the list of backward classes, and one of them being Valmiki, Boya (Boya, Bedar, Kiratka, Nishadi, Yellapi, Pedda Boya), Talayari and Chunduvallu as backward classes caste at Sl.No.24 under Group-A. The above said G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970 was up-held by the Supreme Court of India in ‘State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S.V.Balaram’ (AIR 1972 SC 1375). The High Court of A.P. by order dated 15.10.1996 in WP No.12053 of 1992 quashed the Government Memo dated 26.12.1987, wherein Telangana District Collectors were directed not to issue B.C. certificates to any person as belonging to ‘Yellapi’ or ‘Yellapu’ community. The effect of the quashing of the government memo is that the ‘Yellapi’ community throughout the State is considered as backward class under Group-A and the persons belonging to that community are entitled to BC certificates.

5. It is not disputed that ‘Yellapi’ community is included in the list of backward classes at Sl.No.24 under Group-A based on the recommendations of Anantaraman Commission by G.O.Ms. No.1793 dated 23.09.1970 and the validity of the said G.O. was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of A.P. vs. S.B. Balaram’ (AIR 1972 SC 1375). The other groups, which are synonyms to ‘Yellapi’ included in the said Sl.No.24 i.e., Valmiki, Boya, Talayari and Chunduvallu. It is not disputed that in some of the districts of Telangana region, more particularly in Nizamabad and Karimnagar there is a community belonging to ‘Yellapu’ caste and they claim that the two castes ‘Yellapi’ and Yellapu’ are one and the same. It is stated that on the letter addressed by the Collector, Nizamabad stating that the people belonging to ‘Yellapu’ caste seeking issuance of caste certificate as belonging to BC-A group on par with the people of ‘Yellapi’ caste. The Government issued a memo dated

26.12.1987 directing all the Collectors in Telangana region not to issue any BC certificates in favour of any person belonging to ‘Yellapu’ or Yellapi’ community on the ground that ‘Yellapi’ are ex- criminal tribe, living mostly in hills and mostly inhabited areas and they live by hunting. The said memo was challenged in WP No.12503 of 1992. This court by order dated 15.10.1996 allowed the said writ petition and quashed the memo observing that the effect of quashing the impugned memo is that ‘Yellapi’ community throughout the State shall be considered as backward class Group-A and the persons belonging to that community are entitled to seek BC-A certificates and the concerned authorities cannot refuse to issue BC-A certificate on the ground that the seekers do hail from Telangana Area. In the above judgment, it was further observed that the order shall not come in the way of the Government taking a decision on the basis of the findings recorded by the A.P. Backward Classes Commission and in accordance with law. As seen from the above judgment, at the time of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the court by the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare that the issue had been referred to B.C. Commission for its investigation and the Commission has already submitted its report.

6. The matter was referred to the B.C. Commission pursuant to the letter received from the Collector, Karimnagar district, wherein number of applications were being filed for issue of ‘Yellapu’ caste certificate on the ground that both ‘Yellapi and Yellapu’ are one and the same and the District Collector sought clarification whether ‘Yellapi’ caste can be equated with ‘Yellapu’ caste. The matter was therefore referred to the B.C. Commission for advise under Section 9(2) of A.P.C.B.C. Act 1993. The BC Commission after issuing notification calling for representations, objections and suggestions and after examining the same and also holding the public sittings and after recording the oral evidence, the BC Commission has furnished its report to the Government on 13.06.1996 making the following recommendations:

1. Delete the term ‘Yellapi’ occurring at Sl.No.24 of Group-A of the existing list of Backward classes and

2. ‘Yellapu’ in Telangana region was a separate and a distinct caste and is not a synonym of ‘Yellapi’ of Sl.No.24 of Group-A of the existing list of backward classes. The Government of Andhra Pradesh considered recommendations of the BC Commission to delete the term ‘Yellapi’ occurring at Sl.No.24 under Group-A of the list was not acceptable in view of the earlier recommendations of Anantaraman Commission, which stated that ‘Yellapi’ along with other synonymous communities are found to be socially and educationally backward classes and based on which recommendations G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated

23.09.1970 was issued and its validity was also upheld by the Supreme Court. The Government has also taken into consideration the earlier judgment of this court in WP No.12053 of 1992 dated

15.10.1990 where under the Memo dated 28.12.1987 issued by the Government was quashed, holding ‘Yellapi’ community throughout the State is considered as backward classes under Group-A and the authorities should not refuse issue BC certificates on the ground that the seekers hail from the Telangana area.

7. Regarding the second recommendation that ‘Yellapu’ caste in the Telangana area is a distinct and separate and not synonym, the Government did not accept the same and clarified in the impugned G.O. that the caste ‘Yellapu’ and ‘Yellapi’ are one and the same and ‘Yellapi’ is a synonym of ‘Yellapu’ occurring at Sl.No.24. In arriving at such decision, the Government has consideration the census report for 1961 of the Government of India, wherein it was observed that ‘Boya’ community in the Andhra Pradesh a de-notified tribe is known by different names, including ‘Yellapu or Yellapi, perhaps in view of their different occupations in different parts of the State. The Government has also taken note of the fact that this court in WP No.12053 of 1992 dated 15.10.1996 observed that there are no findings recorded by the Anantharaman Commission that the members of the ‘Yellapi’ community are not found in other parts of the State, except in Rayalaseema and Nellore districts. The fact that the people belonging to ‘Yellapi’ community were predominantly found in certain parts of the State does not rule out their existence in the other parts of the State. This court in WP No.12053 of 1992 therefore quashed the memo dated 26.12.1987 holding that ‘Yellapi’ community throughout the State shall be considered as backward class in Group-A. The impugned G.O. was thus issued by the Government clarifying that ‘Yellapu’ and Yellapi’ communities are one and the same and ‘Yellapu’ is synonym of ‘Yellapi’ occurring at Sl.No.24 Group-A and the factors taken into consideration for issuing such clarification have been specified in the impugned G.O. itself, which includes reference to the earlier judgment of this court in WP No.12053 of 1992.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Government having referred the matter to the A.P. Commission for Backward classes, ought to have accepted the recommendations made by the Commission, as the Commission as expert body has examined the issue in detail. It is to be noted that the matter was referred to the Commission by the Government for advise and the Commission makes only a recommendation to the Government. In terms of Rule 8 of the A.P. Commission of Backward classes Rules 1993, the Government has absolute right either to accept or reject the report in full or a portion thereof submitted by the Commission and the decision of the Government on any issue shall be final. It is therefore within the competence of the Government in terms of Rule 8 to reject the recommendations made by the Commission. Such rejection of the recommendations cannot be assailed, especially when the impugned G.O. discloses the basis on which the decision was made and the material factors that have been taken into consideration, which includes the Census Report of the Government of India for 1961, which refers to ‘Yellapu’ or ‘Yellapi’ as being synonym to ‘Boya’ a de-notified tribe and also the decision of this court in WP No.12053 of 1992.

9. In fact, the impugned G.O. fell for consideration in the earlier writ petition i.e., WP No.8058 of 1990 wherein, the caste certificate issued to the petitioner therein as belonging to ‘Yellapi’ was cancelled on the ground that such caste does not exist in Karimnagar district. The petitioner therein specifically contended that the caste ‘Yellapi’ is also pronounced as ‘Yellapu, Yellapondulu’ and they all relate to one and the same caste with different spellings. It is also contended that the BC certificate was being issued to the person belonging to the said caste from 1970 i.e., ever since the issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.1793 dated 23.09.1970 and accordingly she was also issued caste certificate and the same was subsequently cancelled on the ground that she belongs to ‘Yellapu’ caste, but not ‘Yellapi’. In the order dated 07.04.1997, the Division Bench of this court held that the people residing in the State of A.P. with caste synonyms i.e., Yellapi, Yellapu, Yellapondlu or Yellapies, which comes under BC-A group as per GO Ms.No.1793 dated

23.09.1970. Issuance of impugned G.O. Ms.No.61 dated 05.12.1996 was brought to the notice of the court and it was contended that the said G.O. was issued having been satisfied that ‘Yellapi’ is a synonym to ‘Yellapu’ and in order to prevent harassment of the people belonging to their caste and putting an end to enquiry against those who wanted to secure caste certificates as belonging to ‘Yellapi’. This court in the above judgment considered the contents of the impugned G.O. in extenso and held that the stand of the respondents that ‘Yellapi and Yellapu’ incorrect and mere difference in the spelling will not change the social status. The cancellation of the certificate issued to the petitioner therein was therefore held to be arbitrary and illegal. With reference to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.61 dated 05.12.1996, this court further observed as follows: “…While parting with the case, it is proper to observe that when once the G.O., dated 05.12.1996 treating that Yellapu and Yellapi are the synonyms, all the authorities in the State are bound by the said G.O. in issuing of caste certificates and conferring other benefits to the persons belonging to this community. Any violation of the said order by any authority amounts to dereliction of duties. It is hoped that in future, that in issuing social status certificates to the persons of the above community, or cancellation, the G.O.ms.No.61 (Backward class Welfare (M) Department) dated 05.12.1996 will be adhered to and while canceling, the principles of natural justice will be observed. Any disobedience of the G.O.Ms.No.61, Backward Classes Welfare (M) Department dated 05.12.1996 by any of the authority of the State of Andhra Pradesh shall have to be viewed by the superior authorities very seriously.”

10. Thus the validity and enforceability of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.61 has been considered and up held in the above judgment. Though the above writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 29.12.1989 where under the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner therein was cancelled, and G.O.Ms.No.61 was not specifically questioned, the above judgment has considered and upheld the validity of the G.O. in the context of quashing the impugned order therein.

11. In view of the above judgment of the Division Bench of this court, upholding the validity of the impugned G.O., the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs prayed for.

12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.06.2012