DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus LAVETI GIRI AND ANR

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 18-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF 
B 
ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
LA VET! GIRi AND ANR. 
APRIL 18, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 15(4) r/w preamble and Articles 14, 
16, 38, 39 and 4(r-Socio-Economic Justice-Admission to professional Course 
C on the basis of false social status certificate as ST-Non appearance of father 
of the candidate in order to prove the social status-Held, Respondent (can-
didate) and his father played fraud upon constitution-Admission wrongly 
gained and appointment wrongly obtained, on the basis of false social status 
certificate, necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine SC, ST and OBC 
D candidates the benefits conferred by the constitution-Social status certificates 
-l ssue of-Guidelines issued-Suggestion to Government to bring about 
uniform legislation with guidelines and rules prescribing penal consequences 
for those who flout constitution. 
Indian Evidence Ac~ 1872: Section 102-Burden of Proof-Of Social 
E status for gaining socio-economic advantages-Held, always on the person 
who claims such advantages. 
--
Respondent, son of a government servant, original resident of Amal· J
davalas in Srikamulam District settled down in Satyavedu Eluru Taluk of 
West Godawari District and were staying at Malkpat, within jurisdiction 
F of Tehsildar Masheerabad, Hyderabad District as his father was posted 
there. 
The Respondent obtained caste certificate from Tehsildar, Val· 
labhnagar, Ranga Reddy District, to the effect that he belonged to 'Konda 
G Kapu' community, a notified scheduled tribe, in order to get admission 
into Engineering course. 
After provisional admission, matter was rererred to the Director, 
1"'41
Tribal Welfare for confirmation of his social status. Director issued notice 
to the Respondent to appear before him with all necessary certificates and 
H with an adult member of his family. The Respondent appeared with all 
430 
' -
DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE v. LA YETI GIRi 
431 
necessary papers, but not with any adult member (his father).· 
A 
The Director, on the basis of school certificate of the father of 
Respondent, in which his social status was mentioned as 'kapu' and on the 
basis that Tehsildar, Vallabhnagar was not competent to issue social 
status certificate, concluded that the respondent was not from a schedule 
B 
tribe. 
The Presidential Notification mentions that 'Konda Kapu' and 
'Konda Reddies' are scheduled tribes while 'Kapus' and 'Redidies' are of 
upper social status. In GO Ms. No. 147 dated April 27, 1977, it is men· 
tioned that Tebsildar/Revenue Division Officer/Assistant Collector/Sub C 
Collector of the Taluk or Divisional Districts, in respect of which nativity 
is claimed,.are competent to issue social status certificate. Io GO Ms. No. 
345 dated June.30, 1977, distinction.between a group of tribes and plains 
were enumerated and' in Annexure I to the G.O. the candidates are re· 
quired to furnish particulars, prescribed therein and the competent officer 
was to verify and satisfy himself of the true social status of the candidate D 
before issuing the certificate. 
Respondent filed writ petition in the High Court against the order 
of the Director. 'The Single Judge, dismissed the petition, pointing out that 
in a different writ petition, the sister and father of the respondent were E 
called upon to produce social status certificate, which they failed to 
produce. In still another writ petition, Respondent's father's brother's son 
had claimed social status as 'Konda Kapu', in which it was held that he 
was not a 'Konda Kapu'. 
Division Bench, in appeal, placed the burden of proof of social status 
F 
founded on entries in the Govt. record of service of respondent's father 
which be had filed subsequently, on the State, and allowed the appeal on 
the grounds that the University Brochure indicated that Tehsildar was a 
competent authority and thus certificate issued was valid. The service 
records and the educational certificates of the Respondent's father estab· G 
lished him to be schedule tribe and that the rejection of the claim of the 
respondent was on conjectures and surmises. 
The contentions of the appellant were that High Court was not right 
in relying on documents produced by the Respondent without any proof; 
that the father did not appear to explain the circumstances under which H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A he had the status of scheduled Tribe, t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.