APHC010722122022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 42618/2022 Between: Vennela Gangabhavani ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THOTA S V L NARASIMHASWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.42618 of 2022 O R DE R: 1. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the endorsement in RC.No.244/2022/SA, Dated 02.12.2022 rejecting the request of the Petitioner for issuance of Integrated Community Certificate in favour of the Petitioner as “Kondakapu of Scheduled Tribe Community’ as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner claims to belong to the ‘Kondakapu Community,’ which is a Scheduled Tribe. As the Petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of A.P. Mahila Police vide Rc.No.2974/DSC- 2019, dated /2019, issued by the Respondent No.2 under the quota meant for Scheduled Tribes, she submitted an application for issuance of the Integrated Community Certificate. It is stated that the paternal grandfather of the Petitioner, namely Vennela Pydithalli, was issued Community Certificate by the Respondent No. 3 on 05.09.2005, as he belongs to ‘Kondakapu,’ and prior to that, the father of Vennela Pydithalli was also issued a Community Certificate on 28.07.1986, certifying that he belongs to ‘Kondakapu.’ As the Petitioner requires to produce the Community Certificate to substantiate her appointment in the quota meant for scheduled tribes, the Petitioner had submitted an application for issuance of Community Certificate. The same was 3 returned by the Tahsildar with an endorsement that the Community Certificate of the grandfather of the Petitioner, namely Vennela Pydithalli, was cancelled vide Proceedings dated 06.04.2021 as per the conclusion of the Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute, Hyderabad (for short ‘T.C.R & T.I’), as well as the District Level Scrutiny Committee and Project Officer ITDA, Paderu, holding that the Petitioner and her family members belong to the ‘Kapu’ but not the ‘Kondakapu’ community. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 3, it is stated that a representation was received from the Scheduled Tribe Community of Paderu questioning the issuance of ST Community Certificates in favour of 68 individuals, who belong to ‘Kapu’ but not ‘Kondakapu.’ On receipt of the representation, the Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu, had submitted a report to the State Government in the year 2005 and requested the Director, Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute (TCR&TI), Hyderabad, to conduct an inquiry on the allegations against the issuance of ST Kondakapu Community Certificates to 68 individuals in the Araku, Dumbriguda, and Koyyuru Mandals of the Paderu Division of the Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District. Accordingly, TCR & TI has constituted an inquiry team and conducted a detailed enquiry as per the social-cultural-economic and 4 religious practices followed by the family members and relatives of 68 applicants and submitted a report to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, stating that the individuals do not belong to the ‘ST Community,’ and thereafter, the Community Certificates were cancelled in their favour after complying with the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, the Community Certificate issued in the name of the paternal grandfather of the Petitioner, ‘Vennela Pydithalli,’ was also cancelled, and the same was published in the District Gazette of erstwhile Visakhapatnam vide Issue No. 60/2021, dated 16.04.2021. It is further stated that questioning the cancellation of the Community Certificates, appeals were filed before the State Government under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act, 1993’), and the same were pending for consideration. 3. It is stated that the Appellate Authority/State Government vide Memo No.1587000/CV.2/2021, dated 18.01.2022, passed an interim order of stay of the cancellation of Community Certificates. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, while contending that the appeals filed by the aggrieved individuals are still pending before the State Government, submits that subject to the outcome of the appeals, 5 the Petitioner can be issued a provisional Community Certificate as provided under Rule 19 of the Act, 1993, as the employment of the Petitioner as A.P. Mahila Police is in question, as she has been appointed in the quota specified for Scheduled Tribes. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that, in light of the cancellation of the community certificate of the petitioner’s grandfather following detailed research by the TCR&TI, the issuance of a provisional community certificate in favour of the petitioner would only further the wrong being perpetrated by persons who do not belong to the ST community. 6. Heard the learned counsels. 7. The community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's paternal grandfather, ‘Vennela Pydithalli’ and others similarly placed following detailed research by the TCR&TI was challenged in an appeal before the State Government, as provided under Section 7 of the Act of 1993, and the operation of said cancellation was stayed vide Memo No. 1587000/CV.2/2021, dated 18.01.2022. In this scenario, as the Appellate Authority/State Government is seized of the matter, it would be appropriate to await the outcome of the appeals regarding the issuance of a community certificate in favour of the petitioner. 6 8. As the petitioner is currently employed as an Andhra Pradesh Mahila Police officer under the ST quota, and since her employment is being questioned for want of a certificate, the respondents ought to consider her case for the issuance of a provisional community certificate as provided under Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes) Issue of Community Certificates Rules, 1993. The provisional certificate would be subject to outcome of the appeals and this would balance the competing interests. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for issuance of provisional Community Certificate in favour of the Petitioner provided as per Rules 19 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. ii) It is made clear that the Provisional Community Certificate would be subject to the outcome of the appeals filed by the Appellate Authority/State Government. 7 iii) There shall be no order as to costs. . As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 06.02.2026 eha 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.42618 of 2022 Dated: 06.02.2026 eha