AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The callous and arrogant attitude of the State Government is adequately betrayed by the stand taken in this writ petition.
The petitioner claims that she belongs 10 ''Konda Reddy'' community which is a Scheduled Tribe (ST). She was born to a ''Konda Reddy'' community mother from a Brahmin father. The marriage never succeeded and the petitioner was brought up by the mother in her parents'' house. The petitioner was always treated and brought up from the beginning as of ''Konda Reddy'' community. This fact was confirmed by earlier dispute which reached the High Court in WP No.2560 of 1978. The petitioner had then challenged the action of the employer-in initiating proceedings for removing the petitioner from service on the ground that she had suppressed the true caste of her and had falsely represented that she belonged to''Konda Reddy'' Tribe and had taken advantage of the reservation. The State-Government of A.P., representated by Secretary, Social Welfare Department of Government, was a party to that writ petition. The writ petition succeeded. Not only that, a writ appeal was preferred by the Director General of Geological Survey under whom the petitioner was then working. It may be pointed out that in the writ appeal also, Government of A.P., through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department was a party. The writ appeal was dismissed confirming the finding of the learned single Judge in writ petition that petitioner belonged to "Scheduled Tribe". The said decision in writ appeal was rendered on 10-11-1980. The said decision became final.
In spite of all this, once again in 1989 by proceedings No.D5/4S31/1989-l, a notice was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad, to the petitioner for verifying her caste and asking her to produce all material to verily as to whether she was in fact of the caste or community to which she claimed to belong. The petitioner has challenged the said proceedings by the present writ petition.
The stand taken by respondent No.3 in the counter is that as lie was not a party in the earlier writ proceeding initiated by the petitioner, the said judgment did not bind him and it was quite open for him to hold an inquiry and decide afresh as to whether the petitioner was of the community to which she claimed to belong.
The stand taken by respondent No.3 is atrocious to say the least. Respondent No.3 is only an employee of the State Government. The State Government was a party to the earlier writ petition. Respondent No.3 cannot by any stretch of imagination contend that he is different from or, above the State Government. He is only a cog in the machinery of the State Government. To contend that he was not made a parry to the earlier writ petition and hence the decision did not bind him shows extremely poor understanding of Law if the contention is taken to be bona fide. However, reading between, one may think that respondent No.3 has shown gravest arrogance by taking up such plea. It is not necessary to dilate on this subject further.
The decision in Writ Appeal No.532 of 1980 is quite clear. By the said decision it has been emphatically held that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and this finding of the learned single Judge has been affirmed in the writ appeal. In face of such decision, respondent No.3 has no business whatsoever to reopen the matter. He cannot sit over the decision of the High Court of the State. He is bound by the decision. The proceedings initiated are totally unwarranted and deserve to be quashed.
The respondent No.3 is identified by State Government and report to High Court as to what action has been taken against him for taking such reckless stand.
The writ petition is allowed.