ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. This writ petition relates to the validity of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner, as disclosed from the affidavit filed by her in support of the writ petition, is, her parents Palaka Ramaiah and Latchamma, who are of Kondakapu caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe, hail from Masanaputti Village of Burji Mandal and she was born to them on 13.05.1949 at Masanaputti. About three months after her birth, as her mother Lachamma expired, her father who was upset failed to take care of her and left her to herself, and so, Allada Jagannadham, who took care of her shifted her to Parvathipuram and admitted her in R.C.M. School, Parvathipuram, and got his name recorded as her father, and gave his caste as her caste, without knowing that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. After she studied Second Standard, her natural father took her back to Masanaputti Village, her native place. But Allada Jagannadham, out of love and affection towards her used to come to Masanaputti Village to enquire about her welfare, and so she, with his cooperation, passed Matriculation examination in 1967, and so, the name of her father is shown as Jagannadham and his caste as her caste. Having come to know of that fact subsequently, she approached the then Tahsildar, Palakonda, and informed him with regard to the events that took place earlier in her life and applied for a caste certificate, whereupon the then Tahsildar, Palakonda, deputed the Mandal Revenue Inspector and got enquiries made at Masanaputti Village and basing on the report submitted by the then Mandal Revenue Inspector, the then Tahsildar, Palakonda, issued a Caste Certificate that she belongs to Mannadora Community, though she belongs to Konda Dora Community. Later, she was selected and appointed as Junior Assistant in the Office of the Superintendent Engineer, Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam District. Subsequently, as her husband, who begot three daughters and two sons through her, was ill-treating her, she chose to stay separately from him and filed a case for maintenance against him in the Magistrate Court, wherein the Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month to her. So, her husband, bearing a grudge against her, gave a complaint alleging that she procured the job by producing a false certificate relating to her caste. So, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, basing on that complaint cancelled her caste certificate, and lodged a criminal case against her. Questioning the cancellation of the caste certificate, she filed W.P. No. 4449 of 1988, which was disposed on 06.02.1997 with a direction to her to prefer an appeal before the Collector, Srikakulam. As she was convicted by the Criminal Court, she preferred an appeal questioning the said conviction, which was allowed and the case was remitted to the trial court with some directions. Thereafter, she was acquitted by the trial court. In connection with the appeal preferred by her to the Collector as per the orders in W.P. No. 4449 of 1988, the District Tribal Welfare Officer visited Masanaputti Village and recorded the statements of Konda Gorri Sinkiah, Palaka Latchumu, Nimmaka Karuvaiah, Palaka Jammalu, who seem to have stated that she is the daughter of Palaka Ramaiah and Latchamma and belongs to Konda Dora Community. As Allada Jagannadharao, who fostered her, is no more, his wife Allada Chittamma was examined by the authorities at Parlakamidi, and though she seems to have stated that she is not her daughter, the District Collector, Srikakulam, (2nd respondent) without considering those statements and the observations in the appeal preferred by her questioning her conviction by the Criminal Court, cancelled her caste certificate. Questioning the said order, she preferred an appeal to the Government (1st respondent). As the same was dismissed on untenable grounds, when she filed a revision, she was informed that no revision is maintainable, she filed this petition as the 1st and 2nd respondents without properly appreciating her case passed orders adverse to her interest.
3. 2nd respondent filed his counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 inter alia stating that the petitioner who claims to be of Konda Dora Community in her affidavit, had obtained a caste certificate that she belongs to Manne Dora Community, which fact itself establishes that she obtained a false certificate relating to her caste. As the husband of the petitioner gave a complaint that the petitioner who belongs to Telaga Caste, which is a Forward Caste Community, obtained a false certificate as belonging to Manna Dora Community and secured a job in the office of the Superintending ending Engineer, Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja and Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, to whom the case was referred for investigation, had after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report that the petitioner belongs to Telaga Caste, but not toManna Dora Community, and so, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam was instructed to take action to cancel the certificate of Scheduled Tribe Community issued to the petitioner as Manna Dora vide proceedings dated 20.12.1987. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, after enquiry, came to a conclusion that no Manna Dora or any other Tribal caste people are living in Uppinivalasa Village of Burja Mandal, cancelled the certificate issued to her on 12.08.1989 and issued a Gazettee Notification on 16.08.1988 cancelling her caste certificate issued by the then Tahsildar, Palakonda to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed W.P. No. 4449 of 1998, which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal within two months from the date of receipt of that order, and with a direction to dispose of the same within three months thereafter in accordance with law. After the petitioner submitted an appeal on 05.03.1997 as per Rule 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (SC/ST/BCs) issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997 (Rules), the same was referred to the Chairman, District Level Scrutiny Committee. The Chairman of that Committee issued notice in FormVI to the petitioner to attend an enquiry before the Committee on 24.04.1999 and to furnish documentary evidence in support of her claim. Petitioner attended before the Committee on 24.04.1999 and stated that the then Tahsildar, Palakonda, issued caste certificate in 1997 that she belongs to Manna Dora Community, but did not produce any documentary evidence in support of her case. So, the Joint Collector and Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee requested the members of the Committee and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam and Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja to conduct fresh enquiry in the village and send report on the caste of the petitioner. The Joint Director, District Backward Class Welfare Officer, Deputy Director (Social Welfare), Additional Superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja, reported that the petitioner belongs to Telaga Caste, but not Manna Dora Community. After perusing the entire records and reports, the Committee opined that inasmuch as the petitioner did not produce any proof in support of her application that she belongs to Manna Dora Community, there are no grounds to declare that she belongs to Manna Dora Community, and recommended for cancellation of the caste certificate issued to her as belonging to Manna Dora. Basing on the report submitted by the Committee and in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (SC/ST/BCs) Regulation to Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (the Act) the request of the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate as Scheduled Tribe was rejected and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, dated 12.08.1988 cancelling the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued to the petitioner was confirmed by the proceedings dated 14.10.1999. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the 1st respondent. After knowing that some benefits are being extended to people belonging to Schedule Tribe Community, petitioner applied for a caste certificate and obtained the same by misleading and misrepresenting facts to the then Tahsildar, Palakonda, and managed to obtain a caste certificate that she belongs to Manna Dora, though she herself is claiming that she belongs to Konda Dora Community. Inasmuch as the caste certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled only after following the procedure prescribed and after due verification, petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4. Subsequently, 2nd respondent filed additional counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 alleging that the petitioner who obtained a certificate dated 24.03.1977 fraudulently to show that she belongs Manna Dora Community had produced another certificate dated 22.11.1991 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja, showing that she belongs to Konda Dora Community after the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled her earlier caste certificate dated 24.03.1977 on 23.09.1988, which clearly establishes that the petitioner is giving different versions at different times, and so, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the order impugned is a non-speaking order, the same is liable to be set aside in view of the ratio in Ambati Srinivasulu v. District Collector, Nellore : 2006(1)ALD229 , K.V. Ramana Murty v. The A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank Rep. by its Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, Srikakulam W.P. No. 8792 of 1992 and Director (MKT), Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Santosh Kumar 2006 AIR (SCW) 2849, where it is held that even administrative authorities who are entrusted with the lis between the parties must record reasons in support of their findings and conclusions and such reasons should be communicated to the persons concerned and contended that inasmuch as the order impugned passed by the 1st respondent does not record any reasons for its conclusions that the appeal of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and as the 2nd respondent also did not give any reason, but he simply, basing on the recommendation of the Committee, passed orders canceling the caste certificate of the petitioner mechanically, without applying his mind to the facts independently, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. He further contented that respondents 1 and 2 erred in accepting the report of the Committee without considering the fact that no person from Masanaputti Village is examined, even though the specific case of the petitioner is that she was born in Masanaputti and was brought up by Allada Jagannadham at Uppinovalasa, and so, no useful purpose would be served by examining the residents of Uppinovalasa for knowing the real caste of the petitioner, and as the real facts would come to light only when persons residing at Masanaputti, who are known to the real parents of the petitioners, are examined, and failure of respondents 1 and 2 in taking into consideration the said fact and the judgment of the Sessions Court passed in her favour, resulted in grave prejudice and injustice to the petitioner.
6. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader representing the Advocate General is that the petitioner who did not come to Court with clean hands, is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, and contend that the fraud played by the petitioner would be evidenced from the fact that she who obtained a caste certificate in 1977 showing that she belongs to Mannadora Community and entered Government service on that basis had, subsequently, produced a caste certificate to show that she belongs to Konda Dora Community and in fact she, in her statement recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer, stated that she is not aware of the place of her birth and the names of her parents and that she came to Srikakulam from Uppinovalasa in 1964 or 1965 and was eking out livelihood by tailoring and imparting tuitions to school going children and that her mother Allada Shanthamma who used to live in Srikakulam died in 1963 or 1964 and her father also died and that her mother informed her that Allada Jagannadharao is her father. Having said so, she cannot now shift her stand and say that she is the daughter of Palaka Ramaiah and Latchamma of Masanaputti Village, Burji Mandal, that too without producing any evidence in support of her such claim, and contended that the birth certificate showing the date of birth as 13.05.1949, being relied on by the petitioner, cannot be taken into consideration because her service register shows her date of birth as 12.08.1949. It is his contention that in view of Section 6 of the Act and Rule6 of the Rules, which lay down that the responsibility of producing necessary evidence is on the applicant, it is for the petitioner to produce the relevant evidence in support of her claim and when she did not produce such evidence or furnish the names of persons who have to be examined, she cannot be heard to say that the Committee or the Officials erred in not examining any persons from Masanaputti Village to know her caste and contended that petitioner, who claims herself to be belonging to Konda Dora Community, failed to explain why she obtained a certificate showing her caste as Mannadora, and got her name registered in the Employment Exchange as a person belonging to Mannadora Community, and obtained job claiming herself to be a person belonging to Mannadora Community, and contended that the petitioner declaring the names of her parents as Allada Chittamma and Allada Jagannadharao in her service register, and now coming out with a version that Allada Jagannadharao fostered her, also establishes the falsity of the petitioner's claim, because all the record produced by the petitioner shows that she has all through been claiming Allada Jagannadharao as her father even in the caste certificate obtained by her in 1977 and has never even whispered that she was fostered by him, and was residing at Uppinovalasa only and had never claimed earlier that she lived at Masanaputti at any time, or mentioned the names of any persons living at Masanaputti, as known to her or knowing her, and did not even furnish the names of the persons living at Masanaputti as persons who would support her claim, and so, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that non-examination of the residents of Masanaputti Village caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, cannot be accepted, more so because the petitioner had, in her service register declared Vijayawada as the Home Town and Jagannadha Rao as her father, and so, she cannot now be heard to say that she is not the daughter of Jagannadha Rao, but she is the daughter of Palaka Ramaiah, and contend that in the event of the petitioner being granted the relief sought, it would result in revival of the caste certificate originally obtained by the petitioner in 1977 and thereby amounting to this Court upholding the earlier claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Manna Dora Community, though she now is claiming that she belongs to Konda Dora Community, when in fact she does not belongs to either of those castes and hails from a forward community.
7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the Committee failed to examine any person from Masanaputti, and had, on the basis of the evidence of people from Uppinavalasa only, held against the petitioner, and so, the said finding has to be set aside, cannot be accepted because Section-6 of the Act and Rule-6 of the Rules read Section 6 of the Act
6. Burden of Proof: Where an application is made to the competent authority under Section 3 for the issue of a community certificate in respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or in any enquiry conducted by the competent authority or the authority empowered to cancel the community certificate or the appellate authority under this Act or in any trial or offence under this Act, the burden of proving that he belongs to such Caste, Tribe or Class shall be on the claimant.
Rule 6 of the Rules
6. Burden of Proof: It is the responsibility of the applicant to produce necessary evidence/documents while applying in Form I/II to the Competent Authority and also as called for by the Competent Authority/Scrutiny and Review Committee at the State level/District Collector/Scrutiny Committees at the District level/Government, from time to time, while enquiring into the claims for the issue of Community, Nativity, and Date of Birth Certificate.
Therefore, it is for the petitioner to produce evidence in support of her claim which, admittedly, is not supported by the records relating to her educational career. Moreover, it is not even the case of the petitioner that she produced any such evidence or furnished the names of any persons who would support her claim, and that the Committee failed to consider such evidence and/or failed to examine the persons named by her.
8. Rule 8 of the Rules, which relates to the procedure to be adopted by the Scrutiny Committee, in cases referred to the Committee by the competent authority under Rule 5(i) of the Rules, which relates to cases of doubtful claims, reads:
The competent authority, in the cases of doubtful claims, shall refer the matter to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee formed at the District level under Rule 8 i.e. Joint Collector of the District for the recommendations of the Committee, with regard to the issue of the Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate as applied for by the applicants. On receipt of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, the Competent Authority shall accordingly confirm or reject the claims of the applicants.
In view thereof, it is clear that the competent authority i.e. 2nd respondent, has to act only on the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee, in this case, examined witnesses hailing from Uppenavalasa, because the petitioner admittedly was brought up in that village, and did not even mention the names of any persons from Masannaputti as the persons that support her claim.
9. As contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, merely because the petitioner, in her service register, mentioned Vijayawsada as the home town, it cannot be taken that she was born in Vijayawada, and so, no inference can be drawn from the fact that the petitioner declared her home town as Vijayawada in her service register.
10. Petitioner did not allege, even in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, that she furnished the names of the persons living at Masannaputti, and made a request for examination of those persons and that the Scrutiny Committee failed to examine those persons. When the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish that she belongs to the community to which she claims to belong, it is for her to state and name the persons who would support for the claim made by her, so that the Committee can examine those persons for coming to a conclusion on the claim made by the petitioner.
11. The caste certificate, issued to the petitioner in 1999, and which was cancelled, shows that she belongs to Mannedora community. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, petitioner did not claim that she belongs to Mannedora Community, and stated that she belongs to Konda Dora Community. When the petitioner herself is claiming that she belongs to Konda Dora community and did not explain how she had sought a caste certificate that she belongs to Mannedora community earlier, I find no ground to hold that either the Committee, or the 2nd respondent erred in holding that the petitioner does not belong to Mannedora Community.
12. The husband of the petitioner admittedly does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, and belongs to Telaga community, which admittedly is not a Scheduled Tribe or Caste or Backward Class. As held in D. Neelima v. Dean P.G. Studies, A.P. Agricultural University : AIR1993AP229 a woman, after her marriage, acquires the caste and gotra of her husband. Similarly, when a woman belonging to a forward caste community marries a man from Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class community she automatically acquires that status. The apex Court in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy : AIR2005SC800 after referring to the case law observed at para 10 (page 61).a woman on marriage becomes a member of the family of her husband and thereby she becomes a member of the caste to which she has moved.
I hasten to add that in the very same paragraph, in the earlier portion, the Apex Court observed
Neither the fact that a non-backward female married a backward male nor the fact that she was recognized by the community thereafter as a member of the backward community, was held to enable a non-backward to claim reservation in terms of Articles 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution.
So the petitioner by virtue of her marriage with her husband automatically acquires the caste of her husband i.e. Telaga Caste, and so, the caste of the petitioner can only be Telaga.
13. As it is not the case of the petitioner that in spite of her marriage with her husband, who belongs to Telaga community, she suffered any disadvantage or stigma or disability attached to a Scheduled Tribe woman. So, even assuming that she were a Scheduled Tribe woman before her marriage after she was married to a person from Telaga community she, who automatically acquired the status of Telaga community, cannot per se claim the status of a Scheduled Tribe woman. For that reason only the caste certificate issued to the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.
14. As the sheet anchor of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner relates to the order of the 1st respondent, (impugned in this petition), not being a speaking order, I feel it relevant to extract paragraphs 2, to 4 of the order of the 1st respondent impugned in this petition. They read-
2. Government have taken up Appeal Petition for personal hearing and posted thecae to 21.1.2002. The appellant and her counsel have appeared for personal hearing and requested for adjournment to obtain her birth extract and other material records and again posted for next hearing on 1.3.2002. The petitioner and her counsel have appeared on 1.3.2002 and made their arguments and produced the birth and other records.
3. Govt. have examined all the above records, MRO, Burja in his letter dated 10.11.1987 has given a report to the Collector, Srikakulam District indicating that the appellant is not a Tribe. The said MRO has taken the statements of large number of villagers of Uppinavalasa village of Srikakulam District. After a detailed enquiry available on records and Birth & Deaths Registers the said MRO has given a report to the Collector, Srikakulam stating that the individual is not Mannedora (ST) community.
4. Government after careful examination of the above facts available on records and in exercise of powers conferred by Government under Section 7(2) of A.P.SCs, STs & BCs Act 16/93 and rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 58, S.W. (J), Department, dated 12.5.97 hereby reject the Appeal Petition filed by Smt. A. Nagamani W/o Satyam, O/o the Superintending Engineer, Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam District. The proceeding of the Collector, Srikakulam District vide reference 1st read above are upheld.
15. From a reading of the order of the 2nd respondent it is seen that he based his decision on the recommendations of the Committee. The Committee on the basis of the evidence adduced before it felt that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community and in fact belongs to a forward caste community. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, petitioner, who stated before the Mandal Revenue Officer that she does not know the names of her parents, did not explain in the affidavit filed in support of this petition as to how she came to know that Ramayya and Latchamma are her parents, when she in the statement recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer stated that Santhama, who brought her up in Srikakulam, died in 1963 or 1964 and even by that time her father died and that her mother informed the name of her father as Jagannadam. Now in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, she thinks it fit to state that Jagannadham, who admitted her in the school, mentioned his name as her father in the school records. As per the school record obtained by the Mandal Revenue Officer, she was admitted into the school at Parvatipuram on 01.08.1957. After studying 4th standard she left that school on 24.07.1959. In the school record her caste is recorded as 'Telaga'.
16. The orders of the Committee and the 2nd respondent clearly set out the reasons for canceling the certificate of the petitioner issued to her as belonging to Mannedora Caste. Appeal preferred by the petitioner to the 1st respondent was dismissed for the reasons extracted above. The apex Court in Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary : [1967]1SCR93 observed that the appellate Court, when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence, need not restate the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court, and expression of general agreement with reasons given by the trial Court in its decision under appeal would ordinarily suffice. In view thereof, the fact that the order of the 1st respondent, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, did not set out the reasons in detail per se is not a ground for interference with the order of the 1st respondent.
17. The decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not apply to the facts of this case because in Ambati Srinivasulu's case (1 supra), the Court was considering the effect of cancellation of dealership of a fair price shop dealer issued under the Essential Commodities Act. K.V. Ramana Murthy's case (2 supra) and Santosh Kumar's case (3 supra) relate to disciplinary proceedings. The facts in this case are different from the facts of those cases, so those decisions do not in any way help the Court in coming to a conclusion in this case. In view thereof, I find no grounds to interfere with the order of the 1st respondent dismissing the appeal of the petitioner
18. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, petitioner does not claim that she belongs to Mannedora Community. She asserted that she belongs to Kondadora Community even after marrying a person from Telaga Community. How she claimed to be a person belonging to Mannedora Community when she joined Government Servant is not explained by her. Had the Government allowed the revision preferred by the petitioner, the earlier certificate issued showing that petitioner belongs to Mannedora Community would revive. Petitioner subsequently could obtain a certificate that she belongs to Kondadora Community. If the order under revision is set aside and the prayer sought by the petitioner to revive her earlier caste certificate of Mannedora is granted, it amounts granting a relief that petitioner belongs to a caste, which she herself does not claim to belong.
19. As the petitioner is coming up with different version at different times, it is clear that there are no bona fides on her part. It is well known that persons who come to court seeking a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should come with clean hands, as the doctrine of uberrima fides applies on all fours to petitions under Article 226 as held in Ibiza Industries Limited v. Union of India : 1998(5)ALD565 and followed in G. Bharti Devi v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority W.P. No. 16005 of 2006 : 2008(2) ALT 214. For that reason also this petition is liable to be dismissed, and so, this petition is dismissed with costs.
20. Before parting with the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner could not have obtained two caste certificates i.e. one certificate showing that she belongs to Manna Dora and the second certificate shows that she belongs to Konda Dora Community without the active assistance of or connivance with the officials in the relevant department(s). So, the superior officers concerned would do well if they were to think of initiating necessary action against those erring officials, so that this type of fraud will not be perpetuated and posts which are reserved for persons who genuinely belong to the communities for which they are reserved, would not be usurped by persons like the petitioner belonging to other communities, posing themselves as persons belonging to that type of Community, with the connivance, either active or passive, of the concerned officials.