APHC010171912024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 8560/2024 Between: 1. B LOKESHWARI, W/O. K.PAWAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC SENIOR INSPECTOR (ASSISTANT) AT SUB- DIVISIONAL CO-OPERATIVE OFFICE, NANDYAL, R/O. FLAT NO. 118, A-BLOCK, NANDYAL GARDENS, SBI COLONY, NANDYAL TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE (CV), ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, NANDYAL DISTRICT, AT NANDYAL. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTE DLSC, NANDYAL DISTRICT, AT NANDYAL 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, 2 NANDYAL DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, ALAGADDA, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, CO- OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, NANDYAL DISTRICT, AT NANDYAL 7. THE SUBDIVISIONAL COOPERATIVE OFFICER, CO- OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, H.NO.28/774, NEAR SUB- POST OFFICE, NGO'S COLONY, NANDYAL-518501 8. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR SERVICES, O/O THE COMMISSIONER FOR CORPORATION AND REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEAR D.NO.2-16-83, SKY LARK TOWERS, 11TH LANE, SYAMALA NAGAR, GUNTUR-522006. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.17.06.2025 IN I.A.NO. 01 OF 2025. ...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 topleased to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms. No.21, Department of Tribal Welfare (CV), Dt. 16.03.2024 issued by the 1 st Respondent by cancelling the 'Yerkula' (ST) caste certificate of the petitioner issued by the 5th Respondent on 28.06.1999, 04.07.2001 and 30.07.2003 vide 339/29.06.1999, 305/05.07.2001 and 408/30/07/2003, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and against to the orders of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 29.01.2010 which is reported as 2010 (2) ALD 333 and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the G.O.Ms. No.21, Department of Tribal Welfare (CV), Dt. No.21, Department of Tribal Welfare (CV), Dt. 16.03.2024 issued by the 1 st Respondent and upheld the 'Yerkula' (ST) caste certificate of the petitioner issued by the 5th Respondent on 28.06.1999, 3 04.07.2001 and 30.07.2003 vide 339/29.06.1999, 305/05.07.2001 and 408/30/07/2003 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to suspend the G.O.Ms. No.21, Department of Tribal Welfare (CV), Dt.16.03.2024 issued by the 1 st Respondent 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 Pleased to grant permission to implead the Additional Registrar (Services) as Respondent No. 8 in the Main Writ Petition, interlocutory applications and other petitions also and pass IA NO: 2 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 Pleased to grant stay for all the further proceedings on the impugned show cause notice of The Additional Registrar (Services), O/o The Commissioner for corporation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur File No. AGC06-29035/2/2025-SEVCES- CCRCS dated 08.04.2025, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 3 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 Pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition 4 No.8560 of 2024 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 4 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 pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition No.8560 of 2024 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VANGA ANITA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.8560 of 2024 O R DE R: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning G.O.Ms.No.21, Department of Tribal Welfare (CV), dated 16.03.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 cancelling the ‘Yerukula’ (Scheduled Tribe) caste certificate of the Petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts in brief are as follows:- The father of the Petitioner by name Byri Nagaraju belongs to ‘Yerukula’ caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe (for short ‘S.T’) community. The mother of the Petitioner namely K. Ramatulasamma belongs to ‘Kammara’ caste, which is a Backward Class (for short 'B.C.') community. They were married during their childhood, and the Petitioner was born out of their wedlock. There were differences between the parents of the Petitioner and the mother of the Petitioner relocated to her parental home in Suddapalli Village, Kadapa District, and has been living there ever since. 6 3. The Petitioner thereafter married one K. Pawan Kumar, who belongs to ‘Ediga’ caste, which does not fall under recognized S.T community. The Petitioner was issued S.T community certificate on 28.06.1999, 04.07.2001, and 30.07.2003. Thereafter, on the basis of the S.T community certificate, the Petitioner was appointed as Typist in the year 2001 and was subsequently promoted as Junior Inspector and Senior Inspector. 4. While so, a complaint was given stating that the Petitioner had obtained the government job by producing a false caste certificate, and the complaint was referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, ‘DLSC’) for enquiry. Upon receipt of notice from DLSC, the Petitioner appeared on 21.08.2015 along with four other members of the ‘Yerukula’ caste, and all of them submitted in their depositions stating that the Petitioner is the daughter of Byri Nagaraju, who belongs to the ‘Yerukula’ caste (S.T community). 5. However, the Respondent No. 2, vide orders in Rc.C6/576/M/2015, dated 01.05.2013, cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner and the same was 7 confirmed in the appeal by Respondent No. 1, vide impugned G.O.Ms.No.21, Department of Tribal Welfare (CV), dated 16.03.2024. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, it is stated that the cause for verification of the genuineness of the caste certificate of the Petitioner was on account of a complaint dated 15.02.2014 submitted by the President of S.T Association, Kurnool, stating that the Petitioner obtained government job by producing a false caste certificate, and the complaint was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, for enquiry and in-turn, the Petitioner’s case was referred to DLSC, Kurnool. 7. It was further submitted that the DLSC, Kurnool, had enquired the individuals belonging to the ‘Yerukula’ caste (S.T community), who deposed that they know the father of the Petitioner namely Byri Nagaraju, but the Petitioner never attended any functions of ‘Yerukula’ caste (S.T community). It was further stated that the DLSC had examined in detail and found that the mother of the Petitioner belongs to ‘Kammara’ caste (B.C. community) and her native place is Suddapalle 8 Village of Peddamodium Mandal of Kadapa District. Further averments were made supporting the impugned order. 8. A counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.5 supporting the impugned order. 9. Heard the respective counsel. 10. The issue that falls for consideration is:- Whether the Petitioner can be considered as belonging to ‘Yerukula’ caste (S.T community). 11. Reasoning:- There is no dispute to the facts narrated by the Petitioner as well as the Respondents. The admitted facts are that the father of the Petitioner i.e., Byri Nagaraju belongs to ‘Yerukula’ caste (S.T community) and by profession was a basket maker and the mother of the Petitioner namely Ramatulasamma belongs to ‘Kammara’ caste (B.C. community). 12. The question of a status of a child born to a ‘Scheduled Tribe’ mother and a ‘Forward caste’ father came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjan 9 Kumar vs. Union of India1 and at Paragraph No.6, it was observed that when a tribal man marries a non-tribal woman (forward class) then their children of such wedlock would attain the tribal status. but, the woman (if she belongs to forward class) would not automatically attain the status of tribal unless she has been accepted by the community as one of them, observed all rituals, customs and traditions which have been practiced by the tribals from time immemorial. Paragraph No.6 is extracted as under:- "6. Undisputedly, the marriage of the appellant's mother (tribal woman) to one Lakshmi Kant Sahay (Kayastha) was a court marriage performed outside the village. Ordinarily, the court marriage is performed when either of the parents of bride or bridegroom or the community of the village objects to such marriage. In such a situation, the bride or the bridegroom suffers the wrath of the community of the village and runs the risk of being ostracised or excommunicated from the village community. Therefore, there is no question of such marriage being accepted by the village community. The situation will, however, stand on different footing in a case where a tribal man marries a non-tribal woman (forward class) then the offshoots of such wedlock would obviously attain the tribal status. However, the woman (if she belongs to a forward class) cannot automatically attain the status of tribal unless she has been accepted by the community as one of them, observed all rituals, customs and traditions which have been practised by the tribals from time immemorial and accepted by the community of the village as a member of tribal society for the purpose of social relations with the village community. Such acceptance must be by the village community by a resolution and such resolution must be entered in the village register kept for the purpose. Often than not, such acceptance is preceded by feast/rituals performed by the parties where the elders of the 1 2006 3 SCC 257 10 village community participated. However, acceptance of the marriage by the community itself would not entitle the woman (forward class) to claim the appointment to the post reserved for the reserved category. It would be incongruous to suggest that the tribal woman, who suffered disabilities, would be able to compete with the woman (forward class) who does not suffer disabilities wherefrom she belongs but by reason of marriage to tribal husband and such marriage is accepted by the community would entitle her for appointment to the post reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It would be a negation of constitutional goal.” 13. A similar view was taken by Hon’ble Division Bench in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. vs. Pagadala Khali Kanthi and Anr.2 and by a coordinate bench in Syamala Rama Raju vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh3. The controversy in various cases reported was with regard to the status of wife in an inter-caste marriage and status of children born in an inter-caste marriage, where the father hailed from forward caste community. There was never a controversy with regard to identity/status of children when the father belonged to depressed community. 14. The above aspects were not taken into consideration by the Respondent-Authorities and cancelling the caste certificate of the Petitioner on the premise that the Petitioner did not live 2 (2010) 2 ALD 333 (DB) 3 2015 (2) ALT 547 11 along with the members of the S.T community cannot be sustained. As there is no dispute that father of the Petitioner belonged to ‘Yerukula’ caste (S.T community), the Petitioner would have to be treated as belonging to the ‘Yerukula’ caste (S.T community) only. 15. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.21, Department of Tribal Welfare (CV), dated 16.03.2024 and Rc.C6/576/M/2015 dated 01.05.2016 issued by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively are set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date:09.03.2026 chs 12 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 28 W.P. No.8560 of 2024 Date: 09.03.2026 chs