Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    

Home > SC > Civil Law > Indian Evidence Act > DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. LAVETI GIRI AND ANOTHER



Please Wait ..


DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. LAVETI GIRI AND ANOTHER

Posted on 11 June 2009 by jyoti

Title

DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. LAVETI GIRI AND ANOTHER



Coram

RAMASWAMY, K.



Act

Indian Evidence Act



Subject

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 15(4) r/w preamble and Articles 14,
16, 38, 39 and 46-Socio-Economic Justice-Admission to professional Course
on the basis of false social status certificate as ST-Non appearance of
father of the candidate in order to prove the social status-Held,
Respondent (candidate) and his father played fraud upon constitution-
Admission wrongly gained and appointment wrongly obtained, on the basis of
false social status certificate, necessarily has the effect of depriving
the genuine SC, ST and OBC candidates the benefits conferred by the
constitution-Social status certificates -Issue of-Guidelines issued-
Suggestion to Government to bring about uniform legislation with guidelines
and rules prescribing penal consequences for those who flout constitution.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 102-Burden of Proof-Of Social status
for gaining socio-economic advantages-Held, always on the person who claims
such advantages.

Respondent, son of a government servant, original resident of Amaldavalas
in Srikamulam District settled down in Satyavedu Eluru Taluk of West
Godawari District and were staying at Malkpat, within jurisdiction of
Tehsildar Masheerabad, Hyderabad District as his father was posted there.

The Respondent obtained caste certificate from Tehsildar, Vallabhnagar,
Ranga Reddy District, to the effect that he belonged to 'Konda Kapu'
community, a notified scheduled tribe, in order to get admission into
Engineering course.

After provisional admission, matter was referred to the Director, Tribal
Welfare for confirmation of his social status. Director issued notice to
the Respondent to appear before him with all necessary certificates and
with an adult member of his family. The Respondent appeared with all
necessary papers, but not with any adult member (his father).

The Director, on the basis of school certificate of the father of
Respondent, in which his social status was mentioned as 'kapu' and on the
basis that Tehsildar, Vallabhnagar was not competent to issue social status
certificate, concluded that the respondent was not from a schedule tribe.

The Presidential Notification mentions that 'Konda Kapu' and 'Konda
Reddies' are scheduled tribes while 'Kapus' and 'Redidies' are of upper
social status. In GO Ms. No. 147 dated April 27, 1977, it is men-tioned
that Tehsildar/Revenue Division Officer/Assistant Collector/Sub Collector
of the Taluk or Divisional Districts, in respect of which nativity is
claimed, are competent to issue social status certificate. In GO Ms. No.
345 dated June 30,1977, distinction between a group of tribes and plains
were enumerated and in Annexure I to the G.O. the candidates are required
to furnish particulars, prescribed therein and the competent officer was to
verify and satisfy himself of the true social status of the candidate
before issuing the certificate.

Respondent filed writ petition in the High Court against the order of the
Director. The Single Judge, dismissed the petition, pointing out that in a
different writ petition, the sister and father of the respondent were
called upon to produce social status certificate, which they failed to
produce. In still another writ petition, Respondent's father's brother's
son had claimed social status as 'Konda Kapu', in which it was held that he
was not a 'Konda Kapu'.

Division Bench, in appeal, placed the burden of proof of social status
founded on entries in the Govt. record of service of respondent's father
which he had filed subsequently, on the State, and allowed the appeal on
the grounds that the University Brochure indicated that Tehsildar was a
competent authority and thus certificate issued was valid. The service
records and the educational certificates of the Respondent's father
established him to be schedule tribe and that the rejection of the claim of
the respondent was on conjectures and surmises.

The contentions of the appellant were that High Court was not right in
relying on documents produced by the Respondent without any proof; that the
father did not appear to explain the circumstances under which he had the
status of scheduled Tribe, that the burden of proof was wrongly caused on
the department, when it squarely rested on the candidate to prove his
tribe, as prescribed under Rules, and that the enjoyment of employment of
the Respondent's father, as scheduled tribe, is not a conclusive proof.

The respondent contended that since the University brochure did not
indicate that certificate from nativity Tehsildar was required, the
Respondent did not know that exactly from which officer, he had to obtain
the certificate and that the Respondent's father's enjoyment of employment
as 'Konda Kapu' in Govt. service, is a conclusive evidence.




Citation

1995 AIR 1506, 1995( 3 )SCR 430, 1995( 4 )SCC 32, 1995( 2 )SCALE815 , 1995( 3 )JT 684



Head Notes

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. The Division Bench has succumbed to the fraud played by the
Respondent and his father to secure false social status as 'Konda Kapu'
while they are 'Kapus' by caste, a forward caste in Andhra Pradesh. [436-D]

2. The burden of proof of social status is always on the person who
profound it to seek constitutional socio economic advantages. It is no part
of the duty of the State to disprove or otherwise. The criteria to obtain
caste certificate from Nativity Tehsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer/Revenue
Divisional Officer, is relevant for the reason that Scheduled Tribes
generally live in forest area, maintains regions and specified pockets and
will be known to local officers or easily accessible for verification. The
father of the Respondent deliberately abstained to appear before the
Director. Though respondent, minor, appeared before the Director, his
statement cannot be used as evidence. The School certificate of
respondent's father bears evidentiary value and relevant material evidence.
The subsequent records manufactured by his father and his continuance in
service on that basis, even if it was accepted by the Department, is not
conclusive and cannot be relied as gospel truth. The totamic characteristic
are required to be satisfied as noted in Annexure-I of the GO. The Division
Bench has totally omitted to consider all the aspects. [437-F, G, 438-B, D,
E]

Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and
Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241, relied on.

3. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the
basis of false social status certificate, necessarily has the effect of

DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE v. LAVETI GIRI [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 433

depriving the genuine scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or OBC
candidates envisaged of the benefits conferred on them by the constitution.
It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinized at
the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. It is necessary to
streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates.
The Government of India would have the matter examined in greater detail
and bring about a uniform legislation with necessary guidelines and rules
prescribing penal consequences on persons who flout the constitution and
corner the benefits reserved for the real tribal etc. etc. so that the
menace of fabricating the false records and to gain unconstitutional
advantages by plain/spurious persons could be prevented. Lest they would
defeat the constitutional objective of rendering socio-economic justice
envisaged under Article 46 in the Preamble of the Constitution under
Articles 14,15, 16, 38 and 39. [439-A, C, 442-D, E]

4. Since by orders of the High Court, the Respondent had already completed
his engineering course, though he played fraud on the constitution
depriving the real tribal of the benefit of education as an engineer. He
was minor at the relevant time, so nothing can be done except declaring
that he is not a tribe and that he is not entitled to any employment or any
other advantage on the basis of his false status as scheduled tribe, namely
'Konda kapu'. His father did not appear before the Director and he is not
before this court to direct the Govt. to lay prosecution. [442-F, G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4545 of 1995.



Judgment Made On

18/04/1995

JUDGMENT:
K. RAMASWAMY, J.:
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and
order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated January 16,
1984 made in Writ Appeal No. 1040 of 1983. This is a second
case after Madhuri's case in which this Court noticed fraud
upon the Constitution played by the plainman to wear the
mask of false social status to comer the Constitutional
benefits of reservation of admission into professional
course under Art. 15(4), an integral scheme of socio-
economic justice conferred on the disadvantage Scheduled
Tribes. The Government of Andhra Pradesh stated in G.O.Ms.
Nos. 245 dated June 30, 1977 and reiterated in G.O. No.289
dated November 28, 1986 of the Social Welfare Department of
the Andhra Pradesh Government, that it is notorious to
secure false caste/community certificates that "a very
numerous applications are received from spurious candidates
claiming and projecting privileges exclusively provided to
Scheduled Tribes candidates with the help of false
certificates relying in not only dilution but also denial of
benefits to Scheduled Tribes candidates." It would be thus
an undeniable fact that to secure false social status as a
Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes, the plainman play
fraud on the Constitution to secure admission in the
professional courses or appointment to a post or office
under the State or its instrumentalities. The Division
Bench put a premium on fraud on the Constitution by its
traditional treatment to the burning malady.
3. The respondent is son of one L. Hanumantha Rao, a
Government servant in Engineering Department of State Gov-
ernment. The admitted facts are that their nativity though
initially was Amadalavalas in Srikamulam Dist. settled down
in Satyavedu in Eluru Taluk of West Godavari District. By
appointment and transfer the respondent's father, while
working in Hyderabad was stating in Malakpot within the
jurisdiction of the Tehsildar Musheerabad, Hyderabad
District. For admission into Engineering course, he ob-
tained caste certificate from Tehsildar Vallabhnagar, Ranga
Reddy Dist. that he belongs to Kondakapu community a noti-
fied Scheduled Tribe. While provisionally admitting the
respondent into first year course of B.E., the Principal,
Osmania University, Engineering College referred the matter
to the Director, Tribal Welfare for confirmation of the
social status of the respondent. On receipt thereof the
latter issued notice to the respondent to appear before him
with all necessary certificates along with an adult male
member who would answer the questions. Though the appellant
had appeared with photostat copies of the certificates
before the Director on July 21,1983, the adult member, in
other words, is father L. Hanumantha Rao had not appeared.
In spite of giving time for his appearance, the Director
having found that the respondent's father did not appear,
considered the certificates produced by the respondent and
concluded that since Tehsildar Vallabhnagar was not
competent to issue the social status certificate, it was
found to be without jurisdiction. In the school certificate
of the father of the respondent, it was recorded that he was
"Kapu" which would mean that respondent and his father do
not belong to Kondakapu community, Scheduled Tribe. Calling
in question of the order of the Director dated August 20,
1993, the respon-
691
dent filed Writ Petition No. 7134/83. The learned Single
Judge by his order dated October 22, 1983 dismissed the Writ
Petition. On appeal the Division Bench reversed the order
of the Single Judge primarily on three grounds, firstly,
that the admission brochure of the Osmania University
indicates that a Tehsildar is competent to issue the
certificate. Since Tehsildar Vallabhnagar is a competent
officer and the certificate issued by him was valid in law.
It was also held that the father of the respondent was in
service of State Government and his service records and the
educational certificates established him to be a Scheduled
Tribe. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to enter the
status as Scheduled Tribe The Director rejected the claim of
the respondent on assumptions and surmises.
4.It is contended by Sri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the
appellants that the High Court was not right in relying on
the documents produced by the respondent without any proof
The father did not appear to explain the circumstances under
which he had the status of Scheduled Tribe. The certificate
from Tehsildar of the nativity criteria is discernible from
the brochure of the University. University is required to
call upon the candidate to produce the required social
status certificate, when a candidate's claim is founded upon
such a social status. Relevant rules or orders issued by
the Government in Social Welfare Department prescribed the
procedure in that behalf The High Court in its traditional
would wrongly caused the burden of proof on the Department
when it squarely rests upon the candidate to prove his
caste/tribe according to the procedure prescribed under the
rules, It is the duty of the certificate issuing authority
to satisfy himself after due verification whether the
candidates belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,
satisfies the criteria prescribed by the Government. Though
the father managed to gain falsely social status as Tribe
and wrongfully and unconstitutionally is in enjoyment of the
benefit of employment as a tribe, it is not conclusive. It
is not uncommon to comer such benefits with connivance of
officers and it is known facts that a strong bureaucrat
lobby successfully prevent either proof of falsity or its
suppression. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken the
relevant factors into consideration to dismiss the Writ
petition. We find force in the contention. Shri Y.
Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently contended that the view of the Division Bench of
the High Court is quite legal and justifiable on the facts.
The candidate does not know from which officer he has to
obtain the social status certificate. The brochure
indicates that the certificate from a Tehslidar is
sufficient. It does not show that the Tehsildar of the
nativity was required to issue the certificate. The father
of the respondent having already in enjoyment of the status
as Kondakapu in Government Service, it is a great material
conclusive fact to decide the issue. The Director,
therefore, was not correct in rejecting the social status.
The Single Judge had committed error in relying upon the
report of the Director. Having given our anxious
consideration, we are of the view that the Division Bench
has put premium on fraud played by the respondent and his
father to secure false social status as Kondakapu while they
are Kapus by caste, a forward caste in Andhra Pradesh,
5. The Presidential notification clearly mentions that
Konda Kapus and Konda
692
Reddies are Scheduled Tribes in Andhra Pradesh. Kapus and
Reddies are plain People who arc forward caste from the main
stream of the society and are of upper social strata. The
endemic characteristic of Scheduled Tribes and plain people
are distinct, different and never in common. Konda Kapu and
Konda Reddies live in tribal areas of forest, mountainous
tracks and shifting cultivation and gathering minor forest
produced are their main avocation. The Totamics clearly
differentiate and demarcates them from the plain people of
Kapus and Reddies. Their customs, marriages are different.
The Government in G.O.Ms. No. 147 dated April 27, 1977 of
Social Welfare Department clearly mentioned that the
Tehsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer or Assistant
Collector or Sub Collector of the Taluk or Divisional
Districts in respect of which the members claims nativity
are competent to issue social status certificate. In the
same G.O. Kapus and Reddies have been enumerated to be a
Scheduled Tribes. In G.O.Ms. No. 245 dated June 30, 1977
Social Welfare Department enumerated the distinct groups of
tribes different from plains. Kapus and Reddies do not have
any similarity in their habits culture. There was no common
social or economic patterns. In order to establish whether
a particular candidate belong to any of the Scheduled
Tribe/group diverse ethnic or cultural identities were
mentioned. In Annexure 1 of the G.O. the candidates are
required to furnish the particulars prescribed therein. The
competent officer was to verify and satisfy himself of the
true social status, of the candidate before issuing the
social status certificate. The same was further enumerated
and elaborated in G.O.Ms. No. 289 dated November 26, 1986,
after the dispute in this case had arisen with which we are
not concerned in this appeal. The orders also specifically
say that who ever was given or taken false caste certificate
are liable to be prosecuted. The officer be penalised in
Departmental proceedings for dereliction the duty including
dismissal from service when found that officer deliberately
issued false certificate.
6.The learned Single Judge has pointed out that in Writ
Petition No. 9071/ 82 filed by the sister of the respondent,
the father of the respondent and his sister were called upon
to produce the social status certificate from the native
Tehsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer but they failed
to produce the same. It was also noted that Vasudeva Rao
brother of Hanumantha Rao has a son by name Ravi Kumar. He
also claimed social status as a Konda Kapu for admission
into M.B.B.S. Course. His Writ Petition No.6637/79 was
disposed of on November 3, 1979 finding that L. Ravi Kumar's
claim for social status as Konda Kapu was doubted. The mat-
ter was referred to the Director wherein it was held that
Ravi Kumar was not Konda Kapu. We agree with the learned
counsel for the appellant that the High Court adopted its
traditional approach of placing burden of proof of social
status founded on the entries in Government record etc. and
called upon the State to rebut it on the touch-stone of
Evidence Act. We are unable to appreciate the view taken by
the Division Bench. Burden of proof of social status is
always on the person who profound it to seek constitutional
socioeconomic advantages. It is no part of the duty of the
State to disprove or its reverse. The criteria to obtain
caste certificate from Native Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue
Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer is relevant for
693
the reason that Scheduled Tribes generally live in forest
areas, mountainous regions and specified ;pockets and will
be known to local officers or easily accessible for
verification. The respondent is not as innocent as the
Division Bench appears to have proceeded. It is seen that
the father of the respondent deliberately abstained to
appear before the Director. The social status to the
daughter was required to be produced from the Tahsildar of
the native jurisdiction but failed. Though he lived in
Malakpet within the jurisdiction of Musheerabad Tahsildar,
he produced the certificate from Tehsildar, Vallabhnagar in
Ranga Reddy District who had no jurisdiction to issue it.
Yet he had chosen to obtain from him and the officer was a
willing and accommodating one to issue false certificate.
When the Principal doubted its correctness and referred the
matter to the Director of Tribal Welfare, the father ad-
mittedly did not appear to establish the social status.
Though respondent, minor appeared before the Director, his
statement cannot be used as evidence. His father is a
Government servant. He knows the consequences and so he
deliberately absented from being present before Director.
Instead he chose to send his son with records. The Director
considered the record and concluded that the respondent
is not a Scheduled Tribe but he is a "Kapu" by caste
as evidenced by the school certificate of his father
declared to be a Kapu. It bears evidentiary value and
relevant material evidence. The subsequent record
manufactured by his father and his continuance in service on
that basis, even If it is accepted by the Department, is not
conclusive and cannot be implicitly relied as gospel truth.
The totamic characteristic are required to be satisfied as
noted in detail in the Annexure 1 f the G.O. referred herein
before. They had not satisfied the Director by furnishing
those characteristic for verification and to take a decision
thereon. The Division Bench had totally omitted to consider
all these aspects and characterised the finding of the
Director to be based on conjectures and surmises. It is an
accepted position that the Director, Tribal Department
established a research wing and made scientific study of
the, endemic characteristic, cultural moorings habits, their
modes of marriages customs etc. of different particular
tribal community. The questionnaire was prepared as per the
Annexure in the G.O. obviously. Knowing that he cannot
satisfy the required features the father of respondent
deliberately abstained to appear before the Director, Tribal
Welfare. Instead he got filed the writ petition in the High
Court put the burden of proof on the State that the Court
relieved the father of proving the status of his son's claim
to be not a Scheduled Tribe. This Court while considering
the similar claims and school register of the father of
Madhuri and Saritha in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 24
1, held that the entry in the school certificate of the
caste of the father bears relevance and would prove to be
false claim as Scheduled Tribe. This Court has laid
guidelines how the matter required to be dealt with and
stated in paragraph 13 thereof.
7.The admission wrongly gained or 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 Constitu-
tion. By reason thereof the genuine candi-
694
dates would be denied admission to professional courses etc.
or appointments to office or posts under a State instrumen-
talities. More often they arc denied social status
certificates while ineligible or spurious persons easily
would secure them. After falsely gaining entry, resort to
dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the
inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. 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:-
1.The application for grant of social status certificate
shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and
Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate
shall be issued by such officer rather than by the Officer
like Taluk or Mandal level.
2.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.
3.Application for verification of the caste certificate by
the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in
advance before seeking admission into educational
institution or an appointment to a post.
4.All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of
three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary
or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the
department concerned, (11) the Director, Social
Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case
may be, and (111) in the case of Scheduled Castes another
officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and
issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of
the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate
knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities,
parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5.Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell
consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in
overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to
investigate into the social status claims, The Inspector
would go to the local place of residence and original place
from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in
case of migration to the town or city, the place from which
he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should
personally verify and collect all the fats of the social
status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian,
as the case may be. 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 and then submit a report to
the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged
in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes
relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological
695
traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the
castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.
6.The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the
vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to
be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or
wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-
cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance
officer to the candidate by a registered post with
acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational
institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or
employed. The notice should indicate that the
representation or reply, if any, would be made within two
weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no
case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the
receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an
opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in
that behalf, the Director on receipt of such
representation/reply shall convene the committee and the
Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give
reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/ guardian to
adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public
notice by beat of drum or any other convenient made may be
published in the village or locality and if any person or
association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce
evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such
opportunity either in person or through counsel, the
Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and
consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the
candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with
brief reasons in support thereof
7.In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found
to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken ex-
cept where the report or the particulars given are procured
or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the
latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be
followed.
8.Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the
parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear
before the Committee with all evidence in his or their
support of the claim for the social status certificates.
9.The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as
possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such
period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the
Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or
spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certifi-
cate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate
within one month from the date of the conclusion of the pro-
ceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and
the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and
the meanwhile the last date for admission into an
educational institution or appointment to an officer post,
is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the
Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf
or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate
already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the
parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or
nonofficial and such admission or appointment should be only
provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the
Scrutiny Committee.
696
11.The order passed by the Committee shall be final and
conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226
of the Constitution.
12.No suit or other proceedings before any other authority
should lie.
13.The High Court would dispose of these cases as
expeditiously as possible within a period of three months.
In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/mis-
cellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge,
then no further appeal would lie against that order to the
Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article
136.
14.In case, the certificate obtained or social status
claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the
candidate should be prosecuted for making claim. If the
prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the
accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral
turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices
under the State or the Union or elections to any local body,
legislature or Parliament.
15.As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false,
on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it
should be communicated to the educational institution
concerned or he appointing authority by registered post with
acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission
of the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational
institution responsible for making the admission or the
appointing authority, should cancel the
admission/appointment without any further notice to the
candidate and debar the candidate from further study or con-
tinue in office in a post.
8. While reiterating the above guidelines to be workable
principles, it is high time that the Government of India
would have the matter examined in greater detail and bring
about a uniform legislation with necessary guidelines and
rules prescribing penal consequences on persons who flout
the Constitution and comer the benefits reserved for the
real tribals etc. etc., so that the menace of fabricating
the false records and to gain unconstitutional advantages by
plain/spurious persons could be prevented. Lest they would
defeat the Constitutional objective of rendering socio-
economic justice envisaged under Article 46 in the Preamble
of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38 and 39.
9.By orders of the High Court the respondent had already
completed his engineering course, though he played fraud on
the Constitution depriving the real tribal of the benefit of
the education as an engineer. He was minor at the relevant
time. So nothing can be done except declaring that he is
not a tribe and that he is not entitled to any employment or
any other advantage on the basis of his false status as
Scheduled Tribe, namely, Kondakapu. His father did not
appear before the Director and he is not before this Court
to direct the Govt. to lay prosecution. Accordingly the
appeal is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- to
defray the amount spent on the respondent.
584





Tags :-    director   tribal   welfaregovernment   andhra   pradesh   vslaveti   giri      

Read / Write Comments







Quick Links



Browse By Category





web analytics