APHC010198272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 10126/2025 Between: 1. Y MUNASWAMY, S/O LATE YANADI SUBBARAYULU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCEUPATION MECHANIC (APSRTC-TIRUMALA DEPOT), 1-15,. T.P.PALEM , BHEERAKUPPAM POST, NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517589. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO REVENUE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, O/O DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT – 517501 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALAHASTI REVENUE DIVISION, SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DT.- 517640. 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, NAGALAPURAM, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517589. 5. VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, T.P.KOTA REVENUE VILLAGE,T.P. KOTA, BHEERAKUPPAM POST, NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517589 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2nd and 4th respondents in not taking any action on my application No.CGC250122000445 dated 22.01.2025 for integrated caste certificate followed by my representation dt.29.01.2025 to the 2nd SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 2 respondent and representations to the 4th respondent dt.01.02.2025 and 03.02.2025 is Arbitrary, Illegal, Violation of Natural Justice and violation of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to issue my integrated caste certificate towards my application NO.CGC250122000445, dt.22.01.2025 in accordance with law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondent Nos.2 & 4 to issue my integrated caste certificate towards my application No,CGC250122000445, dt.22.01.2025 in accordance with law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KISHORE KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 3 O R D E R This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief: <…to issue a Writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of 2nd and 4th respondents on the petitioner’s application No.CGC250122000445, dated 22.01.2025 for Integrated Caste Certificate followed by petitioner’s representation dated 29.01.2025 to 2nd respondent and representations to 4th respondent dated 01.02.2025 and 03.02.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, violation of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to considering the application No.CGC250122000445, dated 22.01.2025 and issue Integrated Caste Certificate to the petitioner in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders …’ 2. Contents of the affidavit filed by Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that the Writ Petitioner is the only son of Y.Subbarayulu and he does not know about his mother; that while the petitioner was aged about 11 or 12 years, his father left him at T.P.Palem village, Bheerakuppam post of Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District and at that time, one Gangisetty Subramanyam and Gangisetty Radhamma, who were having two daughters, orally adopted the petitioner as their son. The petitioner studied up to III standard at P.S. Elementary School, T.P.Palem for the Academic SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 4 Year 1980-1981 to 1983-1984 and his caste was mentioned as Yanadi in ST community. (b) Later, the petitioner joined in the Government Boys ST Welfare Hostel, Sathyavedu and continued his studies in Muthyaladasu School, Sathyavedu and studied up to V standard; that later, he joined in the Government High School, Sathyavedu, Bheerakuppam village, Nagalpuram Mandal and studied VI standard; that later, one B.Ankaiah identified him as orphan and joined him in Ajampur Government High School, Hyderabad in IX standard, but, very soon, the petitioner discontinued his studies and started to work as a cleaner in motor field and shifted to Chennai. (c) Thereafter, the petitioner obtained driving license and worked as a lorry driver at Chennai; that due to love and affection on the petitioner, his orally adopted parents performed his marriage with their granddaughter viz. G.Prabhavathi in the year 1994 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two sons viz. G.Prasanth and G.Praveen; that from the date of petitioner9s marriage, the villagers started differentiating him as, a scheduled tribe married an upper caste girl belonged to other community and settled in the village; that after lapse of three years, due to the harassment of villagers, the petitioner shifted his family to Tirupati SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 5 in the year 2001 and even thereafter, the villagers of T.P.Palem continued to harass him and defame him with caste and canvassed in the area. (d) On 16.12.2024, the petitioner lodged a complaint against the villagers, who were harassing him and who made him to not to enter into the village and it was registered as a case in Crime No.112 of 2024, dated 16.12.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 125 (2), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 8BNS9) and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s), 3 (1)(za) (C) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 3 (5) of BNS; that for the said case, the petitioner applied for Caste Certificate on 22.01.2025 vide application No.CGC250122000445, but there was no reply from the competent authority; that as 4th respondent rejected his application for issuance of Integrated Caste Certificate without any reason, even after production of his education certificate, previous caste certificate issued in the years 1985, 1989 and 2005 and transfer certificate, on 29.01.2025 the petitioner gave representation to 2nd respondent. (e) On 01.02.2025 and 03.02.2025, the petitioner gave representation to 4th respondent to issue caste certificate after rectification, but even after lapse of 80 days from the date of his SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 6 application, the respondents have not acted upon. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit, denying the contents of the affidavit accompanying the Writ Petition, inter alia contending that upon the application of petitioner, inquiry was conducted and it was found that petitioner belonged to Balija (OC) by caste and to get benefits from the Government, for education and for job purpose, his caste name was entered in the school records as Yanadi; that there was a discrepancy with regard to caste and in order to take a decision, the report was submitted to the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Tirupati. (b) As per the School Certificates, the caste of petitioner was mentioned as Yanadi, but during inquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, dated 25.03.2025 in T.P.Palem village, it was revealed that the surname of petitioner is Gangisetty, and his parents name is Gangisetty Subramanyam and Gangisetty Radhamma and they belonged to Balija (OC) caste. The petitioner is having two sons viz. G.Prasanth and G.Praveen and as per their school records, their surnames are mentioned as Gangisetty and caste was mentioned as Gajula Balija; that the petitioner along with five others sold lands to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.162/12 and Ac.0.16 cents in Sy.No.162/13 in favour of one R.Kumar, SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 7 S/o.Munaswamy vide Registered Document No.910/2007, dated 07.06.2007, wherein, the petitioner affixed his signature as G.Munaswamy; that in the Voter List of Sathyavedu Assembly, the surname of the petitioner was mentioned as Gangisetty. That one Arooru Jayasankar, during inquiry, stated that he and the petitioner mentioned their caste as Boya and Yanadi, respectively, to get benefits i.e., food and other requirements; that the Tahsildar conducted inquiry and issued Caste Certificate as Balija (OC) vide Office C.No.22/2024, dated 28.02.2024 to the petitioner; that the Writ Petition was filed at premature stage, as the inquiry with regard to caste of petitioner is under process at the District Level Scrutiny Committee headed by the District Collector. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Writ Petitioner filed reply to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, denying the contents of the counter-affidavit. It is contended that issuance of subject Caste Certificate with C.No.22/2024, dated 28.02.2024 by respondent No.4 is out of his knowledge and false in nature and the petitioner never received any such Certificate from respondent No.4. If so, respondent No.4 might have filed the same along with the counter-affidavit. 5. Heard learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 8 respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the entire material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend that 2nd and 4th respondents failed to appreciate the fact that the community of Writ Petitioner in school records was mentioned as Yanadi which comes under the Scheduled Tribe category. He further submits that Aadhar Card issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India and Caste Certificate, dated 01.07.1989 issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagalapuram clearly discloses that the petitioner belonged to Yanadi community. But, without conducting proper inquiry, Certificate vide C.No.22/2024, dated 28.02.2024 was issued stating that the petitioner belonged to Balija caste (OC) and even though the petitioner made applications to rectify the respondent Nos.2 and 4 wantonly not taken any action on the petitioner9s applications and not issued Integrated Caste Certificate within the stipulated time. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent No.4 would contend that an Inquiry in respect of the caste of the petitioner revealed that the he belonged to Balija (OC) community and his surname was mentioned in all the documents as Gangisetty and unless the Inquiry is proceeded SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 9 further, the real facts would not come into light and the Writ Petitioner without waiting for the outcome of the pending Inquiry to be done by the authority, filed the Writ Petition at premature stage. 8. A perusal of contentions and rival contentions of both parties goes to show that vide CGC No.250122000445, dated 22.01.2025 and CGC No.250131031592, dated 31.01.2025, the petitioner made applications to the Tahsildar, Nagalapuram Mandal seeking for issuance of Caste Certificate, but, those applications were rejected by the Tahsildar, Nagalapuram. Indeed, reasons for rejecting those applications were not placed on record either by the petitioner or by any of the respondents. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner, through Public Grievance Redressal Programme (PGRS) No.TPT202502033379, dated 03.02.2025, made an application to the Tahsildar, Nagalapuram for caste verification and for issuance of Caste Certificate. It is the contention of petitioner that so far, his application was not complied with by the said authority. 9. Indisputably, both petitioner and respondent No.4 relied upon certain documents to prove their respective contentions, disclosing the caste of petitioner, to prove their respective contentions. Respondent No.4 filed copy of Registered Sale Deed No.910/2007, dated 07.06.2007, wherein, the petitioner SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 10 signed as 8G.Munaswamy9. Admittedly, copy of Aadhar card annexed to the said Sale Deed was also filed. A perusal of the said document goes to show that though the name of petitioner is visible, his surname is not clear. The other document that was placed before this Court is copy of FIR in Crime No.122 of 2023 of Nagalapuram Police Station on the complaint given by the petitioner, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 8IPC9). In the said copy of FIR, the surname of petitioner was mentioned as 8G9 and his father name was mentioned as 8G.Subbarayulu9. In respect of caste column, it was mentioned as 8others9. 10. Apart from the said document, statement of one A.Jayashankar, resident of T.P.Palem was filed. A perusal of the contents of the statement of A.Jayashankar would reveal that the petitioner was working as Assistant Mechanic in APSRTC; that he got well-acquaintance with the petitioner and his family members and they all belonged to Balija caste community. In the said statement, it was further stated that the petitioner does not belong to Yanadi community and in case, if the petitioner secured job basing on the Caste Certificate as Yanadi community, such certificate may be treated as invalid. SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 11 11. It is apparent on the face of each and every document relied upon by respondent No.4, that the petitioner9s surname was mentioned as Gangisetty and in the Study Certificates of his two sons viz. Prasanth and Praveen, their surname was also mentioned as Gangisetty. As per the statement of A.Jayashankar, the petitioner belonged to Balija community and he secured job in APSRTC, obtaining the caste certificate in the name of Yanadi caste community. According to petitioner, his surname is Yanadi and he belonged to Yanadi caste community and the surname Gangisetty belonged to one Subramanyam and Radhamma, who orally adopted him, when the natural father of petitioner viz. Yanadi Subarayulu abandoned him during his age of 11 or 12 years. 12. In order to prove the contention of petitioner, he filed, Transfer Certificate, dated 02.07.1989 issued by the Z.P.P.High School, Beerakuppam Post, Nagalapuram of Chittoor, wherein, the surname of petitioner was mentioned as Yanadi Munaswamy and his father name was mentioned as Y.Subbarayulu. In respect of caste, it was mentioned as 8Yanadi9 community. Coming to another Transfer Certificate, dated 31.07.1990 issued by the Government Boys High School, Beerakuppam Post, the caste of petitioner was mentioned as Yanadi. The then Head Master, SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 12 P.S.Elementary School, T.P.Palem, Beerakuppam Post issued Caste Certificate, dated 01.07.1985, wherein, it was mentioned that the petitioner belongs to Yanadi caste as per school records and he studied in the said school for the period from 15.09.1980 to 06.06.1984. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagalapuram issued Caste Certificates, dated 01.07.1989 and 18.01.2005, wherein, it was mentioned that the petitioner viz. Y.Munaswamy, Son of Y.Subbarayulu belongs to Yanadi by caste. 13. Indeed, a perusal of Aadhar Card, dated 16.07.2011 issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India, in favour of petitioner, goes to show that the petitioner surname is 8Yanadi9. It is not the case of petitioner that he does not know the persons, whose surname is 8Gangisetty9, but it is the case of petitioner that he was orally adopted by one Gangisetty Subramanyam and Gangisetty Radhamma during his childhood and though, he was adopted by them, at the time of joining him in school, they enrolled his name as Yanadi Munaswamy and mentioned his caste as Yanadi, but not Gangisetty. 14. Besides the aforesaid documents, the petitioner placed copy of Service Record containing the personal data recorded by the Employer, wherein the name of petitioner was mentioned as Y.Munaswamy. In respect of Caste/Nationality/ SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 13 Religion column, it was mentioned as ST (Yanadi). Further, in the Driving License, APSRTC Office Identity Card, Income Certificate and first page of bank pass book pertaining to Andhra Bank, the name of petitioner was mentioned as Y.Munaswamy, but not G.Munaswamy. 15. Though, during inquiry made by competent authority, one A.Jayashankar, who in his statement, stated that the petitioner does not belong to Yanadi community, much credence could not be given to such statement, for the reason that, in Crime No.112 of 2024 of Nagalapuram Police Station got registered by the petitioner, A.Jayashankar is none other than accused No.2. When he being arrayed as accused No.2 in the crime got registered by the petitioner, it cannot be expected that he would state in favour of petitioner during inquiry conducted by competent authority. 16. In Syamala Rama Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare (CV.2) Department rep. by its Principal Secretary and others1, this Court held as under: (paragraph Nos.5 and 6) <5. …However, it is admitted case that the father of the petitioner belongs to ST (Koya) community and his 1 2015 (2) ALT 547. SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 14 mother belongs to OC (Reddy) community. In the case of such inter-caste marriage, it is well established that the children get the social status of the father. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner worked at Rajahmundry Municipality under ST category and in all the school records the social status of the petitioner was shown as ST community only.= 6. In the circumstances, instead of remanding the matter to the appellate authority, I hold that the petitioner belongs to ST (Koya) community based on the social status of his father. In view of the admitted case of the petitioner’s father belonging to ST community, the other issue whether the petitioner was brought up in the surroundings of ST community is not being dealt with.= 17. Apparently, a perusal of entire material on record goes to show that the petitioner is working as Assistant Mechanic in APSRTC. If at all the petitioner belonged to Balija community and he fraudulently obtained the Caste Certificate as Yanadi and secured job in APSRTC, the competent authority of APSRTC might have come across the said fact at the time of verification of antecedents itself. A perusal of Caste Certificate, dated 01.07.1989 issued by the then Tahsildar, Nagalapuram in favour of Writ Petitioner goes to show that he belongs to Yanadi, which comes under the Scheduled Tribe. 18. The Writ Petitioner also filed the Caste Certificate, dated 18.01.2005 issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 15 Nagalapuram and the Transfer Certificate issued by the School authorities, which clearly goes to show that the Writ Petitioner belonged to Yanadi community, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe. Merely because Gangisetty Subramanyam and Gangisetty Radhamma, who orally adopted the petitioner during his childhood, belong to Balija caste, it cannot be said that the petitioner too belonged to Balija caste. Without there being any proper inquiry or acceptable material evidence, only relying on the inquiry report placed before the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Tirupati, the applications of petitioner could not have been rejected. Indeed, when once the applications of petitioner were rejected, he made representation before PGRS, dated 03.02.2025 for issuance of Caste Certificate and though, stipulated time of 60 days or 80 days, as the case may be, has elapsed, the petitioner was not issued the said certificate and it was stated that the inquiry is still pending. Therefore, when the stipulated time is completed, it cannot be said that Writ Petition was filed at premature stage. As held in Syamala Rama Raju case (1 supra) it is well-established that children get the social status of the father. When such is the case, Writ Petitioner being son of his natural father, would get the same social status of his father. Merely because he was orally adopted by a family of Balija SRK, J W.P.No.10126 of 2025 16 community, it is not a ground to hold that he does not belong to Yanadi community. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents to issue Integrated Caste Certificate in favour of petitioner in respect of his application No.CGC250122000445, dated 22.01.2025 in accordance with law, within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 10th December, 2025. DNB