ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J
1. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In these cases the students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes sought selection and admission into various courses for the academic year 1998-99. Their grievance is that inspite of they belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and producing the caste certificate under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Order, 1976, the authorities have insisted them to produce integrated certificate in Form III of A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (for short ‘ 1993 Act’), which envisages three particulars i.e., caste, nativity and date of birth. It is relevant to extract Rule 21 of the A.P, (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997 (for short ‘ 1997 Rules’), which is saving clause, which reads thus:
”’21. Savings: The Community Certificate issued by the Competent Authority prior to the commencement of these Rules should be treated as a valid certificate”.
It is the case of the petitioners that the authorities ignoring the same, neither admitting them nor allowing them to prosecute studies saying that they have produced certificates issued earlier to these rules and insisting that they must produce integrated certificates. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the present writ petitions are filed.
3. On an earlier occasion, under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court
in WA No.87 ot 1999 by judgment dated 8-2-1999 after perusing 1993 Act observed that:
“No doubt, certificate in the prescribed proforma as contemplated by the rules is required to be complied with by the candidate, but, non-compliance of the same in the proforma does not envisage denial of admission.”
So observing six months time was granted to the students to produce the integrated certificate and in case the petitioner fails to produce such certificate then leaving open to the authorities to cancel the admission and the petitioners will be at liberty to seek appropriate relief in the appropriate forum. There was also a direction to the MRO, to issue caste certificate in the prescribed proforma within a period of four weeks. Meanwhile a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.31571/98 dealing with the case observed that this Court on an earlier occasion in WP No.25545/98 found that when once caste certificates issued under old rules remain effective and valid unless and until they are cancelled. When dealing with the said writ petition by the learned single Judge, it was brought to His Lordship’s notice the judgment in the Division Bench, referred to above, and the decision of the Supreme Court in R, Kundasamy v. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, . However the learned single Judge found that the decision of the Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. Therefore the learned single Judge referred the writ petition to the Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement as to whether production of fresh caste certificate in the absence of annulment of earlier caste certificate issued is a must and secondly whether the integrated certificate in Form 111 is mandatory.
4. In order to answer the reference, apart from Rule 21 extracted above, it is
proper to bear in mind the scope of Rule 18 which reads:
“18. Complaints: Whenever complaints arc received regarding the community claim of any employee/prospective employee/student claiming to belong to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class, the appointing authority/ employer/educational institution must refer the case only to the District Collector of the District from where the Competent Authority has issued the certificate. The District Collector shall in turn get it verified by the Scrutiny Committee constituted at the District level as per Rules. The District Collector would inform the final action to the appointing authorily/employer/educational institution within a period of 90 (ninety) days, from the date of the receipt of the complaint by him/her from the appointing authorily/employer/educational institution.”
it is not the case on hand that the students have produced a false certificate. Secondly, in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Kandasamy v. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust (supra), the authorities cannot insist the students to produce a fresh caste certificate when the earlier certificate issued to them by the competent authority is subsisting. Apart from the above, if the authorities entertain any doubt as to the genuineness of the certificates produced by the students, then they must refer the case to the District Collector and thereupon the District Collector shall in turn get it verified by the Scrutiny Committee as per Rule 8 and the District Collector would inform the final action to the authority within ninety days from the date of receipt of such complaint. In these cases there is no such complaint by the authorities. In addition to this, as far as other two requirements i.e., nativity and date of birth arc concerned, they are very much available in the certificates produced by the students,
but not by way of Form III. It is relevant to extract here Form III which is as follows:
Â
“Form III
Â
Serial No.
Â
Â
S.C.
Â
District Code:
S.T.
Emblem
Mandal Codc:
B.C.
Â
Village Code:
Certificate No :
Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate.
(1) This is to certify that Sri/
Smt/Kum …………… son/daughter of Sri
…………………….. of village/town
……………… Mandal …………………….
District …………………… of the State of
Andhra Pradesh belongs to ……………..
Community which is recognised as S.C7 S.T./ B.C. under:
The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
G.O. Ms. No. 1793, Education, dated 25-9-1970 as amended from time to time (BCs), SCs, STs. List (Modification) Order, 1956, SCs and STs (Amendment) Act, 1976.
(2) It is certified that Sri/Smt/
Kum………………… is a native of ……….
village/town ……….. Mandal ……………..
District of Andhra Pradesh.
(3) It is certified that the place
of birth of Sri/Smt/Kum ………… is
……………… village/town ………. Mandal
…………. District of Andhra Pradesh.
(4) It is certified that the date
of birth of Sri/Smt/Kum ……. day ……….
month ……….. year …………. (in words)
………. as per the declaration given by
his/her father/mother/guardian as entered in the school records where he/she studied.
Date:
Signature’
Name in capital letters:
(Seal)
Designation:
Explanatory Note: While mentioning the community, the Competent Authority must mention the sub-caste (in case of Scheduled Castes) and sub-tribe or subgroup (in case of Scheduled Tribes) as listed out in the SCs. and STs.
(Amendment) Act, 1976.”
5. As far as issuance of caste certificates is concerned, SC & ST caste certificates will be issued by RDO and BC Caste Certificates will be issued by the MRO. Column ‘C’ of the Call Letter issued by S.V. University, Tirupati for admission to B.Ed Course in the Colleges of Education in A.P., 1998-99 stipulates integrated community certificate in case of SC/ST/BC as per G.O. Ms. No.58, Social Welfare (J) Department, dated 12-5-1997 indicating sub-caste. Rule 4 of 1997 Rules deals with procedure for application; Rule 5 gives power to the authority to issue certificates in Form III; Rule 6 deals with the burden of proof in the event of dispute as to the correctness or otherwise of the certificates; Rule 7 gives power to the scrutiny and Review Committee; Rule 8 deals with regard to the Scrutiny Committee; Rule 9 deals as to what action to betaken in case of fraudulent claims; Rule 10 provides appeal to an aggrieved person against the orders of the Competent Authority to the District Collector; Rules 11 and 12 provide review and revision; Rule 13 laid down bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts; Rule 14 empowers the powers to be exercised by the civil Courts; Rule 15 provides for action on false certificates; Rule 16 provides validity of community, nativity and date of birth certificate; Rule 17 lays down the procedure for issuing duplicate community, nativity and date of birth certificate.
6. In these cases, the authorities though aware of 1993 Act and 1997 Rules that in case of any defect in the certificates produced, instead of notifying the same to the students or give some time to produce the certificate in Form I, II, or III, took a very unsatisfactory stand, which resulted in causing great hardship to the students in prosecuting their studies. The authorities would have been justified in rejecting the applications if any fraud or mis-representation on the part of the students had made known or shown in the production of certificates showing caste, nativity or date of birth. It is not the case of the authorities that any of the student played such fraud or mischief in producing the certificates. The only complaint is that the petitioners did not produce integrated certificates. This objection should have been ignored by the authorities when such information is very much available with them as the petitioners have already produced the certificates to that effect. If for any reason that authorities felt that production of integrated certificate is a must, they should have given a chance to the petitioners for production of a fresh certificate before completing their courses.
7. It is needless to say that 1997 Rules will have prospective effect unless it is made or intended that they will have retrospectively effect. In our view it is sufficient for the authorities to act on the certificates produced by the candidates obtained prior to 1997 Rules unless such rules are invalidated by competent authority.
8. However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Kandaxamy ‘s case (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.87/99 and to avoid further unnecessary complication to the students, it is ordered as follows:
9. The petitioners shall make an
application before the authorities concerned
within fifteen days from this day seeking issue of integrated certificate and on such application the authority shall issue the same within fifteen days thereafter by making use of the caste certificate issued earlier including the other particulars as to date of birth and nativity, if already available, or otherwise collecting the same from the petitioners concerned. It is also ordered that the students who have already been admitted pursuant to the interim directions shall be entitled to continue their course. The petitioners are given six. months time to file the integrated certificates.
10. Insofar as WP No.31571/98 is concerned, since it is brought to our notice that the petitioner has already been admitted, but there is a direction to reserve one seat, it is now clarified that the petitioner shall be admitted against a seat so reserved for the next academic year as it is said that already six months have elapsed and no purpose will be served if this petitioner is now admitted to the course for the academic year 1998-99. The petitioner shall be admitted into the course for the academic year 1999-2000, if he is otherwise eligible, qualified and produces the required certificate within the time stipulated above.
11. With the above observations these writ petitions are disposed of. No coats.