Vice-Chancellor-cum-Chairman, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi and Another Vs T. Rajeswari and Others

Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.@mdashThese two writ appeals arising out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No. 24530 of 1997 dated 21-1-1999 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. While Writ Appeal No. 216 of 1999 was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition viz., Vice-Chancellor-cum-Chairman, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati and the Registrar of the University respectively, Writ Appeal No. 229 of 1999 was preferred by 3rd respondent-Dr.(Mrs.) K. Vijayakwnai. For convenience sake, the parties will be referred to by their status in the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was filed by Dr. (Mrs.) T. Rajeswari to declare that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali-4th respondent in the writ petition has no power or authority to issue Caste Certificate dated 18-2-1988 to the 3rd respondent in view of the guidelines issued under the Presidential Orders and various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts and that the said Caste Certificate is null and void and be quashed. The writ petitioner also sought for a declaration that the 3rd respondent cannot be considered as belonging to Scheduled Caste community for the purpose of appointment to the post of Zoology Lecturer in respect of the interview conducted by the University on 25-1-1989 and that her appointment as Zoology Lecturer be declared as null and void and be set aside and consequently it was prayed that a direction be issued to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer is Zoology in the 1st respondent-University with retrospective effect from the date on which the 3rd respondent was appointed, with all the attendant benefits such as arrears of salaries, continuity of service etc.

3. Briefly noted, the facts are: The Registrar of Sri Venkateswara University (2nd respondent) made an advertisement in the month of October, 1988 calling applications from the eligible candidates for the posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors to be appointed in the said University in various departments. Advertisement was made for three posts of Lecturers in Zoology Department. One post was meant for Open Competition, one post was reserved for Backward Class and the third vacancy was reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the writ petitioner had applied as one of the candidates for the post of Lecturer in Zoology reserved for SC candidates. She was called for interview and participated in the interview before the Selection Committee held on 25-1-1989. According to the petitioner, among the 12 candidates participated in the interview, she is the only candidate who is working as Senior Research Fellow in the said University at that time and she is a native of Chittoor District. It is the case of the petitioner that she has fared well in the interview and answered all the questions before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, however, selected and appointed the 3rd respondent on the ground that though she belongs to a forward caste community, but married to a Scheduled Caste person and therefore she was given the benefit of the reservation of the said post reserved for Scheduled Castes. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No. 3719 of 1989 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition. However, in the Writ Appeal No. 902 of 1997 preferred there against, this Court modified the order passed in the writ petition by substituting with an order permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition inasmuch as the Mandal Revenue Officer who issued the caste certificate was not made a party to the writ petition. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.

4. According to the petitioner, the impugned action of the respondents in the writ petition is contrary to law, illegal and abuse of power vested in them and is not a bona fide action and is liable to be corrected and that the Vice-Chancel lor and the Registrar of the University ought to have seen that the caste certificate dated 18-2-1988 submitted by the 3rd respondent is null and void and that they ought to have seen that by marrying a Scheduled Caste community candidate she cannot convert herself into another caste or Scheduled Caste and the guidelines issues under the Presidential Order are binding on the University and that the University ought not to have appointed the 3rd respondent who belongs to the forward caste community as Lecturer in Zoology. It is further submitted that the certificate dated 18-2-1982 is not sustainable on the face of the record and it should be declared as null and void and be quashed. It is also submitted that a forward caste community member cannot change his or her caste to a Backward Caste community or Scheduled Caste by marrying a person belonging to Backward Class or Scheduled Caste.

5. A counter-affidavit was filed by the Registrar of the University. According to the Registrar, he has issued the advertisement on 3-11-1988 and denied the allegation that one post out of the three posts of Lecturers was reserved for SC category. It was stated that in the advertisement it was mentioned that usual rules of reservation would be followed. The Vice-Chancellor has constituted a committee as stipulated in Section 36 of the University Act comprising of Vice-Chancellor, three experts from other Universities, UGC nominee, Chairman, Board of Studies and the Head of the Department and that the Committee after careful scrutiny and after taking into consideration the relative merits of the candidates based on qualifications, experience and performance in the interview, recommended the following three candidates for the posts of Lecturers in the Zoology Department.

1. Dr. P. Neeraja (Open Category)

2. Dr. (Mrs.) K. Yellamma (BC category)

3. Dr. (Mrs.) K. Vijayakumari, (SC category)

6. While Dr. P. Neeraja and Dr. (Mrs.) K. Yellamma were posted as Lecturers in the Department of Zoology, S.V.U. College of Arts and Science, Tirupati, Dr. K. Vijayakumari-3rd respondent was posted in the Department of Zoology at S.V.U P.O. Centre, Kavali. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has performed well in the interview and her educational and research qualifications are not on par with the candidates selected by the Selection Committee. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent produced her caste certificate to the effect that she belongs to Madiga caste by virtue of her marriage with one Sri M. Rajeswara Rao who belongs to Madiga caste and that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittoor who is competent to issue the caste certificate has categorically stated in his communication F. Dis.220/88 dated 18-2-1988 that Smt. K. Vijayakumari belongs to Madiga caste, which is recognised as Scheduled Caste. It is further submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 6-8-1988 brought amendment to G.O.Ms.No.289 Social Welfare (J2) Department dated 28-11-1986 to the effect that all Gazetted Officers of the State Government and Mandal Revenue officers irrespective of their cadre shall be competent to issue caste certificates in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward Classes for the purpose of appointment to service, admissions into educational institutions, sanction of scholarships and other concession to which these communities are eligible, unless otherwise specifically provided. It is, therefore, submitted that the appointment of 3rd respondent is neither arbitrary nor violative of the provisions of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The Selection Committee has duly and carefully assessed the relative merits of the various candidates including the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and selected only such of them who in their judgment found to be suitable candidates in the particular discipline among the applicants interviewed.

7. It was further stated that the allegation that the 3rd respondent belongs to forward caste community and by virtue of her marriage with a Scheduled Caste person she claimed SC community are not borne out by any record in the University Office. The legal position by the time of appointment of 3rd respondent is different from the one stated by the petitioner in the writ petition. Even if the 3rd respondent does not belong to SC community, her selection does not become invalid, because, the recommendation of the Selection Committee is based on merit but not on the basis of the caste.

8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it was stated that none of the vacancies notified were earmarked to any particular category and in pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, she was appointed to the post of Lecnirer in Zoology under the category of Scheduled Castes and that the Mandal Revenue Officer who is the competent authority after conducting necessary enquiries and after satisfying that she is eligible for the benefits applicable to Madiga caste which is a Scheduled Caste community has issued the caste certificate and that she has put in more than nine years of service in the University and therefore the writ petitioner cannot question her appointment at this distance of time. It is further submitted that her name was considered for appointment by the University under Scheduled Castes category as per the rules then existing and that there is no illegality or infirmity in her appointment to the post of Lecturer in Zoology under SC category as per the Government instructions in vogue and her service were confirmed in the said post in 1991 and that the writ petitioner was not selected by the Selection Committee. The petitioner has appeared for the post of Lecturer under the Scheduled Castes category in the year 1991 also but she was not successful. Therefore, she has no manner of right or interest to question her appointment at this distance of time. She has also denied that one post of Lecturer was reserved for SC category in the notification and that as per the rules existing and also the legal principles applicable at the relevant point of time a woman married to a Scheduled Caste person is treated as the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. Since she admittedly married a person belonging to Madiga community, which is a Scheduled Caste community, and as she was accepted by the Madiga community as a member of the said community, the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued the Caste certificate treating her as belonging to Scheduled Caste candidate after considering all the above aspects. It is her specified case that she has not suppressed any information nor she has misled the authority for obtaining the caste certificate and on the other hand she had disclosed all the relevant facts to the Mandal Revenue officer who has issued by the certificate after conducting necessary enquiries as per the rules then in vogue. Therefore, it is submitted that the Caste certificate issued by the 4th respondent is valid and legal. In any event, it is submitted that her appointment, which was made in pursuance of her selection in 1989, cannot be questioned by the petitioner at this point of time who was not selected by the Selection Committee.

9. An additional counter-affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent stating that at the time of her appointment in the University, the writ petitioner and herself possess the following qualifications:

10. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner was not selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Lecturer on 25-1-1989 and therefore her prayer seeking a direction to the respondent-University to appoint her as Lecturer in Zoology with retrospective effect from the date on which she was appointed with all attendant benefits such salary, continuity of service etc., is totally misconceived and she is not entitled for the said relief.

11. On a consideration of the rival contentions, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition holding that a person who is a Scheduled Caste or scheduled Tribe by birth will not be considered as a member of the Scheduled Caste or scheduled Tribe merely because he or she had married a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or scheduled Tribe. Likewise, a person who is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not loose her or his social status after his or her marriage with a person who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In other words, the spouses to the institution of a marriage continue to retain their original social status. The learned Judge in this regard has placed reliance on the notification issued by the Government of India in its letter L.No.35/l/72-RU (SCT.V) dated 2-5-1975 which stipulated some guidelines and as per said guidelines no person who was not a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by birth will be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe merely because he or she had married a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Similarly, a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would continue to be a member of that Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, even after his or her marriage with a person who does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. According to the learned Judge, the 3rd respondent cannot acquire the Caste of her husband on marriage and she retains her Caste as long as she is alive and that she cannot be considered to be belonging to Scheduled Caste candidate for availing the benefits under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India and accordingly the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Lecturer in Zoology in a post earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates has to be declared as invalid. The learned Judge however was not inclined to go into the details whether the appointment of the 3rd respondent was done wantonly or involuntarily. The learned Judge observed that though he tried to find out the reasons why the petitioner was not selected, but it could not be done, as the minutes of the Selection Committee are not made available to the Court. The learned Judge, therefore, issued the following directions:

If the petitioner secures minimum marks for appointment and if there are no other meritorious candidates above her among the Scheduled Caste candidates, she has to be considered for appointment as Lecturer is Zoology. I have given this direction keeping in view Article 335 of the Constitution which stipulates that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration in the making of appointments to services and posts connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. In other words, if she is having the minimum standards of teaching she should be considered for appointment and I am sure no one can say that she is not having the minimum required capacity to teach the students as she is holding the post of senior fellowship by the time she appeared for the interview and on whom a Doctorate was conferred for the work done by her within few months thereafter.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

12. Aggrieved by the above judgement, the aforesaid writ appeals were preferred by the University and the 3rd respondent as stated earlier.

13. Sri Adinarayanarao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in WA No. 216 of 1999 submitted that the University considered the case of the 3rd respondent -Smt. K. Vijayakumari (appellant in WA No. 229 of 1999) as belonging to Scheduled Caste category on the basis of the Caste Certificate dated 18-2-1988 enclosed to her application which shows that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and that unless and until the said certificate is held to be illegal and invalid, appointment of the 3rd respondent in SC roster point cannot be said to be illegal and invalid. He would further submit that when the community certificate was issued by the concerned authority in accordance with the law decided by this Court in P. Usha Kiran v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1976 (1) APLJ (SN) 58, the said certificate cannot be said to be illegal. It is further submitted that u/s 19 (C)(ii) of Sri Venkateswara University Act, 1954, the Syndicate (re-designated as Board of Management) is to appoint the Lecturers etc., on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and that Section 36 of the Act specifies with whom the Selection Committee has to be constituted. It is further argued that it is not the case of the writ petitioner-Dr. T. Rajeswari that the Selection Committee recommended her name for appointment as Lecturer and that Article 335 of the Constitution of India is of no avail to her when her name was not recommended by the Selection Committee and that there is no provision of securing minimum marks for appointment and that the merit of the candidates has to be judged only by the Selection Committee but not by the appointing authority and that the learned Judge has not noticed the provisions of the Act.

14. At the time of hearing, Sri Adinarayanarao, learned Counsel appearing for the University has placed before us the minutes of the Selection Committee and he strenuously argued that the minutes clearly shows that the name of the writ petitioner-Dr. T. Rajeswari was not recommended by the Selection Committee. He, therefore, contended that the learned single Judge has erred in issuing a direction to the University to appoint the petitioner.

15. Sri Jagapatht, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant- Dr. K. Vijayakumari submitted that the learned single Judge having held that the 3rd respondent-appellant has not committed any fraud on the authorities at any point of time, ought to have held that the 3rd respondent may not be entitled for any further benefits under SC category, instead of interfering with the appointment after 14 years of service. It is further submitted that the learned single Judge having conceded that the appellant-3rd respondent has crossed the age prescribed for entering into the Government service ought not to have interfered with the appointment more than a decade after the appointment. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have considered that selection of a candidate by the Selection Committee has nothing to do with the social status and that the appellant having been selected for the said post by the duly constituted Selection Committee could have been appointed even under OC category and the appellant did not avail of any concession under SC category and therefore, she cannot be penalised for no fault of her particularly at this distance of time. It is further contended that the writ petitioner was not selected for the post of Lecturer in Zoology not only in the selection held in 1988 but also in other subsequent selections and therefore she is not entitled for appointment. She cannot claim appointment only because she is having the minimum standard of teaching. It is also submitted that a number of SC candidates had appeared for interview along with the writ petitioner and the appeilant-3rd respondent for selection pursuant to the notification dated 3-11-1988.

16. Sri T. Balakrishnaiah, learned advocate appearing for the contesting respondent (writ petitioner) in both the appeals submitted that the University authorities contrary to the Presidential Order and instructions and guidelines issued by the Government of India in Circular No. 35/ 1/72/RU/SCT dated 2-5-1975 which provides that the guiding principles to decide the Caste of an individual is to find out the caste in which he or she was born and not the caste of the person whom he or she married, the 3rd respondent was appointed as Lecturer in the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes candidate on production of a false caste certificate. According to the learned Counsel, the 3rd respondent is known as K. Vijayakumari D/o. K. Ramachandra Reddy resident of Sarakallu viliage of Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor District and belongs to Kapu caste by birth and that the said caste is being called as Reddy in Chittoor District which is a forward caste and not Scheduled Caste. After her post graduation, she applied to the post reserved for SC candidates and claimed the benefit of reservation as SC (Madiga) by virtue of her marriage with a Scheduled Caste person and by producing false caste certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavaii to the effect that she belongs to Madiga caste by virtue of her marriage with Sri M. Rajeswara Rao who is a Madiga by caste. It is submitted that the said claim of Dr. K. Vijayakumari is not permissible under laws unless she is by birth is a Scheduled Caste person, but the appellant-University authorities appointed her as Lecturer in Zoology in the vacancy reserved for SC category erroneously and in contravention of law and the rules and as such the same is liable to be set aside and be declared as null and void as was rightly done in WP No. 24530 of 1997. It is further submitted that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no power or authority to issue the caste certificate dated 18-2-1988 to the 3rd respondent who does not belong to Scheduled Caste by birth and the same is invalid under law and contrary to the guidelines issued under the Presidential Orders. The learned Counsel would further argue that the judgment of the learned single Judge is in conformity with the various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts and the Presidential Order and warrants no interference by this Court in the appeals.

17. According to Sri Balakrishnaiah, the guiding principle is that no person who was not a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by birth will be deemed to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe merely because he or she married a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Similarly, a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would continue to be a member of that Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, even after his or her marriage with a person who does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that a forward class community member by marrying a Backward Caste or a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community member does not become a member of the backward Caste or Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and continues only to be the caste by birth inspite of marriage to a Scheduled Caste or Backward Caste person for all purpose including for appointment in Government service. The certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue officer, is, therefore, illegal and contrary to the above guidelines and that if the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue officer is accepted as valid, it will give scope to a woman to choose the caste of her choice through marriage irrespective of the caste in which she was bom and thereafter seek alteration of her caste through interecaste marriages. He contends that such a system of electing or opting for a particular caste through marriage by a woman or a man is not contemplated in law and would defeat the object to be achieved and give scope to commit malpractice of marriage convenience for undue benefit depriving the opportunity to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. If such a course is allowed to be permitted, the same would defeat the very purpose of protective discrimination created by the Constitution of India in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, it is submitted that both the writ appeals are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.

18. The leaned Counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the decisions of this Court in P. Vshakiran v. the Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra), Rajendra Rasad v. The Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. 1996 (1) LS 407 (FB) and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Another, .

19. Sri Balakrishnaiah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent relied upon the decision of this Court in Smt. D. Neelima Vs. The Dean of P.G. Studies, A.P. Agricultural University, Hyderabad and others, , judgment of the Delhi High Court in Urmila Ginda Vs. Union of India and Others, , judgment of the Madras High Court in Review Petition No. 20 of 1997 in WP No. 1909 of 1994 (Dr. V.Sarada v. the State of Tamilnadu) and the judgment of the Apex Court in Mrs. Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University and others, .

20. In Urmila Ginda v. Union of India the Delhi High Court held that the petitioner therein who belongs to high caste Malhotra of Punjab and who married a person belonging to Scheduled Caste (Dharmi Community i.e., Chamar) cannot take advantage of any special provision made in favour of Scheduled Castes and if she is permitted to compete for a reserved post it would defeat the very provision made by the State for such socially and educationally backward people.

21. In Smt, D. Neelima v. The Dean of P.G. Studies, A.P. Agriculture University, Hyderabad, a Division Bench of this Court has taken a similar view and the petition was dismissed at the admission stage.

22. In Valasamma''s case, the Supreme Court held that intercaste marriages and adoption are two important social institutions through which secularism would find its fruitful and solid base for an egalitarian social order under the Constitution and, therefore, due recognition should be accorded for social mobility and integration and accordingly its recognition must be upheld as valid law. However, the apex Court has held that a candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in forward caste and had march of advantageous life but is transplanted in Backward Caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15(4) or 16(4), as the case may be. In Dr. V. Sarada v. The State of Tamilnadu the petitioner therein who belongs to forward caste community was married to a Scheduled Caste community and when the Tahsildar declined to issue her caste certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste, she filed the writ petition. Initially the Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, but, however, subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Valasamma''s case, the High Court reversed its earlier decision in a review petition filed by the Secretary, Adi Dravida and Tibal Welfare Department.

23. Relying on the above decisions, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that the caste certificate issued in favour of Dr. K. Vijayakumari is not valid. There cannot be any dispute about the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Valasamma''s case. But the question is whether the said decision can be retrospectively made applicable particularly when Dr. K. Vijayakumari was issued caste certificate on the basis of the law prevailing at the time the certificate was issued and when there was no fraud or misrepresentation on her part in obtaining the certificate.

24. At this stage, it is useful to reproduce the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kavali which reads as follows:

Caste and Community Certificate

This is to certify that Dr. K. Vijayakumari daughter of Sri K. Ramachandra Reddy under Special Marriage Act, married Sri M. Rajeswara Rao, son of M. Sangeetha Rao, belonging to Madiga Caste, which is classified as Scheduled Caste, residing at Kavali, by virtue of the marriage, Dr. K, Vijayakumari with Sri M. Rajeswara Rao, she acquired the caste and community of her husband. Dr. K, Vijayakumari is entitled to claim and receive all the benefits on the basis of her husband''s caste.

(Issued on the basis of the Certificate of Sri M. Rajeswara Rao, marriage certificate of Sri M Rajeswara Rao and K. Vijayakumari and on reference with APLJ (1) 1976 SN 58).

Station: Kavali.                                              Tahsildar, Kavali.

Dated 30-7-1984.

25. A perusal of the above certificate clearly shows that it had been issued on the basis of the caste certificate issued in favour of Sri M. Rajeswararao and the marriage certificate and also on the basis of the judgment of this Court in P. Usha Kiran v. The Secretary to Government of A.P. (supra). In this case, Kondaiah, 3., held that it is not only by birth but by conversion, marriage and other acts, the caste of a person is determined and that after due performance of the marriage, the person would certainly acquire the caste of her husband and she ceases to be a member of her caste by birth. The learned Judge has further observed that acquisition of caste by birth is only one of the modes of acquiring caste by an individual, but, this will not in any way, prohibit or prevent a person belonging to a particular caste to change her caste by marriage, character and conduct. The earlier appointment order dated 6-3-1985 issued by the University appointing the 3rd respondent, as Lecturer in Zoology would also show that she was appointed temporarily as Lecturer in the said University and she was required to produce the caste certificate at the time of joining duty.

26. Dr. K. Vijayakumari in her application made to the Tahsildar for issue of caste certificate on 16-7-1984 has clearly mentioned that she belongs to Reddy caste but married to a person belonging to Madiga on 27-2-1984 under the Special Marriage Act. For a better appreciation, the said presentation may conveniently be reproduced as under:

To
The Tahsildar,
Kavali.

Sri,

Sub: Issue of Caste Certificate-Dr. K. Vijayakumari-Requested.

I am working as Research Associate in Sri Venkateswara University Post-Graduate Centre at Kavali. I belong to Reddy caste, but I married Sri M. Rajeswara Rao on 27-2-1984 under Special Marriage Act. The Xerox copy of Marriage Certificate is herewith enclosed. My husband belongs to Madiga caste and the same comes to Scheduled Caste. The Xerox copy of caste certificate of my husband issued by the Tahsildar, Tenali of Guntur District is herewith enclosed. After my marriage the community of my husband accepted me and treating me as a member of their community. By virtue of my marriage with my husband I acquired the caste of my husband and I cease to be a member of my caste by birth.

Acquisition of caste by birth is only one of the modes of acquiring caste by an individual but this will not in any way prohibit or prevent a person belonging to a particular caste to change her caste by marriage, character and conduct. The above proposition has been upheld and decided by his Lordship Justice Challa Kondiah of A.P. High Court in a Writ Petition WP No. 337 of 1976 filed by P. Usha Kiran against the Secretary to Government of A.P. and others. The above decision is reported in 1976 (1) APLJ 58 Short Notes. A Xerox copy of the decision is herewith enclosed. The above decision is binding on me and all.

By virtue of my marriage I acquired caste of my husband and became a lady belonging to Madiga caste which comes under the definition of Scheduled Caste.

Hence I request the Tahsildar, Kavali to issue me a caste certificate that I belong to Madiga caste which is classified as Scheduled Caste.

Yours faithfully,

K. Vijayakwnari.

27. A reading of the above application would clearly disclose that Dr. K. Vijayakitmari has not suppressed any material and that she has requested for issuance of the certificate on the basis of the decision of this Court in Ushakiran ''s case.

28. It is argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that this Court in Ushakiran''s case did not lay down the correct law and the Supreme Court in Valasamma''s case has clearly held that a person cannot acquire the statute of SC/ST/BC by adoption, conversion and by marriage and that the rights conferred on SC/ST/BC under the provisions of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution are the statutory rights and that the decision in Ushakiran is no longer effective and has to be ignored and that the law laid down therein does not hold good. The guidelines issued by the Department of Home, Government of India in their letter-dated 2-5-1975 is earlier in point of time than the judgment in Usha Kiran and, therefore, the caste certificate issued by her by the Tahsildar is invalid under law.

29. In the above context, we shall now refer to the case put forward by the University and the appointee.

30. It is the specific case of the University that it had issued advertisement on 3-11-1988 in which it had been clearly mentioned that usual rules of reservation as per the Government rules would be followed. The University has specifically denied the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the post of out of three posts of Lecturers in Zoology was received for SC candidates. The University has constituted a Selection Committee to select the candidates for the post of Lecturers in the Department of Zoology strictly as per norms stipulated in Section 36 of the University Act. The Selection Committee consisted of the Vice-Chancel lor as Chairman, three experts from other universities, UGC nominee, Chairman Board of Studies, Head of the Department as members. The Committee after careful consideration of the relative merits of the candidates based on qualifications, experience and performance in the interview recommended the name of Dr. K. Vijayakwnari for the post in question. It is also a matter of record that though the writ petitioner belongs to SC category, her performance in interview, educational and research qualifications are not on par with the candidates selected by the Selection Committee and in comparison Dr. K. Vijayakumari is better qualified, possessed more research and teaching experience than the writ petitioner. As already noted earlier, Dr. K. Vijayakumari is a first class post graduate in MSc., and obtained her Ph.D., in 1980 and had published 20 research papers in national and international journals. Further, she had been working as a temporary Lecturer in Zoology from 8-3-1985 till the date she was selected for the post of Lecturer on regular basis. She had also to her credit guided research students working for M. Phil and Ph.D. degrees. Whereas the writ petitioner though possesses M.Sc., first class in 1983, she has not acquired her Ph.D., even by the time when she appeared for the interview. She has neither teaching experience nor guided any candidate leading to research degrees.

31. In. regard to the production of the caste certificate, it is the case of the University that the certificate produced by Dr. K. Vijayakumari was to the effect that she belongs to Madiga caste by virtue of her marriage with one Sri M. Rajeswararao who belongs to Madiga caste. The University had only acted on the certificate issued by a competent authority who in his communication dated 18-2-1988 stated that Smt. K. Vijayakumari belongs to Madiga caste, which is recognised as Scheduled Caste. As already noticed, there is no suppression of material facts by Dr. K. Vijayakumari and that the certificate was issued by the officer on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Ushakiran''s case which was the law applicable at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the University was not at all at fault in accepting the certificate produced by Dr. K. Vijayakumari. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the University that unless and until the said certificate is held to be illegal and invalid, her appointment in the SC roster point cannot be said to be illegal and invalid. By the time the caste certificate was issued and by the time the appointment was made, the judgment rendered by this Court in Ushakiran''s case was the law applicable and that simply because in a subsequent decision, the said view was not accepted and a different view taken, the appointment which was made following the earlier case cannot be declared to be invalid and illegal. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has not noticed this aspect of the matter in his judgment. The learned Judge, in our opinion, ought not to have held that the judgment given by another learned single Judge is not good law. The learned Judge has also not stated that any other judgment rendered by the Bench occupying the field at the relevant point of time was binding on him in preference to the judgment delivered in Ushakiran''s case and the learned Judge in Ushakiran''s case has ignored that decision. The law is well settled that one learned single Judge cannot hold that the judgment made by another learned single Judge is not good law and if the learned single Judge does not accept the view taken by the other learned single Judge, the matter is only to be referred to a Division Bench. When the community certificate was issued by the concerned in accordance with law decided in Ushakiran''s case, the said certificate cannot be said to be illegal. Likewise, the learned single Judge is also not correct in observing that the post was earmarked for a Scheduled Caste candidate. As per the notification, it is seen that such earmarking was not done. But Dr. K. Vijayakumari was appointed in a SC roster point. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the selection Committee had recommended her name for appointment as Lecturer at any point of time. Under such circumstances, the learned single Judge, in our opinion, is not correct in directing the University to consider her case for appointment though the Selection Committee did not recommend her name. The Selection Committee has nothing to do with the social status and that the 3rd respondent having been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee could have been appointed even under the OC category and therefore, in our opinion, she cannot be penalised for no fault of her at this distance of time.

32. It is settled law that this Court would not act as super-Selection Committee and reassess the merits or demerits of the candidates selected by a Selection Committee duly constituted under a statute. Evaluation of the merits or demerits of the candidates appeared for the interview are the functions entrusted to the Selection Committee by the statute. In the instant case, the Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of the University Act had considered and assessed the merits of the candidates appeared for the interview and it had come to the conclusion that Smt. K. Vijayakumari is more meritorious and suitable to be appointed as Lecturer in Zoology and accordingly selected her. The University had accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee and appointed her Lecturer. The selection process in our opinion, is not at all vitiated on account of any reason and that the writ petition is based on mere imagination. Even otherwise also if the selected candidate does not belong to SC category her selection does not become invalid because the recommendation of the Selection Committee is based on merit and not on the basis of caste. As already noticed, none of the vacancies, were earmarked to any particular category. In our opinion, the selected candidate namely Vijayakumari has not suppressed any information nor she has misled the authority or the Selection Committee nor she misled the authority for obtaining the caste certificate and on the other hand she had disclosed all the facts to the authority who has issued the caste certificate after conducting necessary enquiry as then in vogue. Therefore, the caste certificate issued by the authority is valid and legal and is in accordance with law then prevailing.

33. The folllwing events should also be taken note of for adjudication of these two appeals.

34. Dr. K. Vijayakumari married one Sri M. Rajeswararao who belongs to Mediga caste, which is a Scheduled Caste community on 27-2-1984. The Tahsildar, Kavali after conducting necessary enquiries and keeping in view the decision of this Court in Ushakirati''s case issued the caste certificate in favour of Vijayakumari on 30-7-1984. She was appointed as temporary Lecturer in Zoology in S.V. University on 6-3-1985 in a leave vacancy pursuant to her selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee. She joined on 8-3-1985 in S.V. University PG Centre, Kavali and continued in the said post until she was regularly appointed on 17-2-1989. On 18-2-1988, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali has issued caste certificate to the 3rd respondent. On 3-11-1988 the University advertised certain posts including three posts of Lecturers in Zoology in S.V. University. AS per the advertisement, reservation shall be as per the Government rules and no post is reserved for any category. On 25-1-1989 the Selection Committee selected three candidates for three posts of Lecturers in Zoology and the 3rd respondent was selected. On 17-2-1989 Vijayakumari was appointed as Lecturer in Zoology and posted to SV University PG Centre at Kavali. On 15-3-1989, the petitioner filed WP No. 3719 of 1989 questioning the appointment of the 3rd respondent, but no interim orders were passed. On 19-5-1990 the 3rd respondent was promoted as senior Scale Lecturer with effect from 19-5-1990 taking into consideration of her temporary service in the said post with effect from 8-3-1985. 3rd respondent was declared as approved probationer in the said post from February, 1991. On 30-1-1997, WP No. 3719 of 1989 was dismissed by this Court. On 19-8-1997 this Court disposed of Writ Appeal No. 902 of 1997 preferred by the writ petitioner with liberty to her to file a separate writ petition impleading all the necessary parties. Later the present writ petition was filed.

35. As already noticed, the petitioner was not selected for the post of Lecturers in Zoology in the selection held in pursuance of the notification published on 3-11-1988. She was also not selected in the subsequent selections made by the University. Therefore, the writ petitioner having not been selected in the selection made by the Selection Committee, she does not have any locus standi to question the appointment of Dr. K. Vijayakumari which was made pursuant to her selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee. She was a guide for two Ph.D., and three M. Phil students and also to one principal investigator for a UGC major research project and also worked as Co-investigator for CSIR Research project. Further she had undergone three years advanced studies in the University of Mississippi Medical Centre, in USA and submitted over 40 research papers on various national and international topics. She is also a recipient of American Federation of Medical Research Trainee Award. In our opinion, writ petitioner is not at all a match either by academic qualification or experience or merit. The fact that the writ petitioner could not be selected even in the subsequent selections also would go to show her merit. Therefore, a person who has been in continuous service since 8-3-1985 and who was also promoted to senior scale Lecturer post in 1990 and due for promotion to the post of Reader cannot at all be disturbed at this distance of time.

36. At this stage we may also notice a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad v. The Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P., (supra). The decision is somewhat similar to the fact situation herein. The question that fell for consideration therein is, whether the services of a person who had been appointed to a job in a public sector undertaking on the basis of he being a Scheduled Tribe and who later on found as not having that status because of subsequent decision of the High Court, clarifying that the sect to which he belongs is not a Scheduled Tribe, are liable to be terminated even though he had put in ten years of service and did not at any time made any misrepresentation of his status and the certificate is liable to be cancelled without notice to him.

37. In order to have a proper appreciation of the matter, a few facts in the said case may be stated. The Head Mistress of SRR Parishad Multipurpose School, Nuzvid issued a caste certificate in favour of the appellant therein describing him as belonging to ''Manya Kapu'' community. Prior to that, the Government had issued a memo on 6-1-1975 clarifying that ''Manya Kapu'' is synonymous with ''Konda Kapu'' and that Government of India had already been requested to incorporate ''Manya Kapu'' in the list of Scheduled Tribes and the Government of India had conveyed its acceptance to include the community as a synonym for ''Konda Kapu'' and a bill in respect of that will be introduced in the Parliament. On 29-11-1976, the Tahsildar, Nuzvid issued caste certificate in favour of the appellant as belonging to ''Manya Kapu'' community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1966/the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Part C States Order, 1956. The appellant was appointed on 7-5-1979 as Junior Engineer in the respondent-corporation in the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes and thereafter on 25-3-1983 was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the reserved category. Prior to the issue of the memo by the Government on 6-1-1975, decision had been rendered by this Court in WP No. 5379 of 1973 on 6-2-1974 holding that ''Manya Kapu'' is a subsect of ''Konda Kapu'' which is a Scheduled Tribe. While that judgment was holding the field another decision was rendered by this Court in WA No. 864 of 1982 on 18-1-1983 which arose out of WP No. 5317 of 1982 which had followed the judgment in WP No. 5379 of 1973 taking the view that ''Manya Kapu'' is ineligible to be treated as a sub-sect of ''Konda Kapu'' and that no evidence can be led for the purpose unless the community itself is mentioned as a Scheduled tribe in the Scheduled Tribes Order and overruled the earlier decision in WP No. 5379 of 1973 rendered on 6-2-1974 though that decision was not referred to by the Bench. Subsequently a letter was addressed by respondent No. 1 therein on 25-6-1986 to respondent No. 2 informing that ''Manya Kapu'' is not a Scheduled Tribe as per the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court and the appointment of the appellant being invalid steps should be taken against him. A charge memo was issued by respondent No. 2 on 6-6-1987 alleging that the appellant had produced false caste certificate on the basis of which he had been offered the job as a Scheduled Tribe and that he should show-cause for having made a false declaration and had thereby contravened the conduct rules. The appellant submitted his explanation claiming that the certificate issued to him was genuine. The appellant filed WP No. 12403 of 1987 questioning the letter issued by the respondent No. 1 dated 25-6-1986 and the charge Memo dated 6-6-1987. The writ petition was admitted and interim order was passed saying further proceedings in the disciplinary action, which was modified, on 16-11-1987 to the effect that the enquiry may go on but no other action should be taken. Challenging the same WA No. 1019 of 1990 was filed. On 28-10-1987 the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the caste certificate issued to the appellant and the appellant challenged the same in WP No. 5614 of 1988. A leaned single Judge dismissed the writ petition taking the view that the caste mentioned in the school certificate of the appellant would have been naturally the result of the declaration made by the parents or guardian at the time of admission and at any rate the certificate had been issued on the erroneous impression that ''Manya Kapu'' community comes under the Scheduled Tribes but as the community does not find place in the Presidential Order, the certificate must be treated as void ab intio. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Principal Guntur Medical College v. Y. Pandwanga Rao AIR 1983 AP 339, wherein the judgment in WP No. 5379 of 1973 was overruled and it was held that no principle of estoppel arises in the case and that the certificate being a false one under which the appellant had enjoyed the benefits reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates for several years, he has to lose his job. The learned Counsel for the appellant in Rajendera Prasad''s case urged that the authorities as well as the learned single Judge had missed the essence of the case inasmuch as the appellant had never produced any false caste certificate and that he had always held himself out as belonging to ''Manya Kapu'' community. He had never claimed himself as belonging to Scheduled Tribe and that it is not his fault that he was recruited to the job as a Scheduled Tribe. It was also argued therein that at the time the appellant was appointed there was the judgment of this Court declaring ''Manya Kapu'' as Scheduled Tribe which held the filed until the decision in Principal Guntur Medical College''s case and as such the appointment of the appellant cannot be retrospectively invalidated.

38. The Full Bench considered the question what is the consequence of the appellant therein being found as not being a Scheduled Tribe and whether any question of equities is involved in the case and what is the right or disability of persons who run their affairs in accordance with the existing law as declared by a Court of Record competently but subsequently the judgment is reversed at later point of time. The Full Bench found that the appellant had never made any false representation with regard to his social status and about seventeen years had elapsed since the date of his first appointment. His appointment as well as promotion under the reserved category was the action of the departmental authorities who treated him as a member of Scheduled Tribe and appointed/promoted him as such. Their action was based upon the decision of this Court rendered on 6-2-1974. Until the decision of the Division Bench on 18-1-1983 came, every body was under the impression that ''Manya Kapu'' was a Scheduled Tribe and was also acknowledged by the Government in their memo dated 6-1-1975 saying that it had written to the Government of India to include the community as Scheduled Tribe and that the Government of India has conveyed its approval to the same and that it was taking steps to include in the next Bill before the Parliament. A submission was made that the appellant therein was not liable to be reverted or removed of his job since he never played any fraud upon the department. The Full Bench observed:

The question as to how the rights of the parties, which had accrued on the basis of the then existing state of law, which is subsequently reversed or modified, would be largely a question of equity so far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned.

There cannot be a straight jacket formulae for dealing with all cases as facts of each case would warrant the particular-approach to be adopted, keeping in view the equities of the situation. It is well settled that so far as the parties to any adjudication by Court are concerned, their rights so determined by a final judgment are not liable to be interfered with because of the subsequent change of the law due to a fresh judgment delivered in another case. Similarly, when a state of affairs have come into existence over a number of years on the basis of the existing law, to allow it to be suddenly upset because of a changed position would almost certainly create hardship which in given situations may be unremediable. It is not to say that in no cases such rights should not be unsettled, as indeed it can be done where the justice of the situation so demands. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case we feel, the interest of justice would be subserved if the same approach as was taken in S. Venugopal Reddy v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies 1996 (1) ALD 460, and the unreported decision is adopted, viz., no action is taken against the appellant, making out a case of his having produced a false caste certificate, getting his appointment and promotion on the basis of such certificate, and he is allowed to retain the present post; but that caste certificate issued in his favour though has been cancelled without affording him opportunity to contest, yet would be treated as non-est in the eye of law and no further benefit either to him or his offspring would be allowable on its basis in any field whatsoever and that the appellant and his off pring would not be treated as Scheduled tribes for any purpose hereafter.

39. The ratio laid down in the above decision of the Full Bench is applicable to the facts of the present case also and the appointment of die 3rd respondent cannot be held as illegal or invalid. However, whether further benefits are allowable to the offsprings of the 3rd respondent or not is entirely a different matter and the same would govern the rules applicable and the law governing the field particularly when the husband of the 3rd respondent admittedly belongs to Scheduled Caste community.

40. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the University in State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma may also be usefully referred to in the present context. In that case applications were invited in respect of only one post and the first candidate in select panel accepted the offer and came to be appointed. Subsequently he resigned from service. The Supreme Court held that other candidates in the panel do not have legitimate right to claim appointment. It was held:

As rightly contended for the appellant-State, the Notification issued inviting applications was in respect of one post and the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but on his acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subsequently that he came to resign. With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. The circular orders dated 22-3-1957 in our view relates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and not a panel of the nature under consideration. That apart, even as per the circular orders as also the decision relied upon for the first respondent, no claim can be asserted and countenanced for appointment after the expiry of six months. We find no rhyme or reason for such a claim to be enforced before Courts, leave alone there being any legally protected right in the first respondent to get appointed to any vacancy arising subsequently, when somebody else was appointed by the process of promotion taking into account his experience and needs as well as administrative exigencies.

41. It is settled law that a caste-community certificate issued by an empowered public authority under seal continues to be a valid document till it is cancelled by the said authority or by his superior authority. The contents in the certificate are to be treated as correct and every public authority, undertakings, bodies, institutions etc., which are bound by instructions relating to such certificates are bound to act upon them, so long as they are not cancelled, it is open to the department or employer or organisation to ask the issuing authority or District Collector, as the case may be, to verify whether the certificate as issued could be still valid on materials which have since come to their knowledge. If the certificate is cancelled, then disciplinary proceedings can be initiated for having furnished false information. Appointing authorities have the right to verify the genuineness of the certificates by approaching the District Magistrate or Collector of the District or such other constituted authority and once the report is received that the certificate is genuine, thereafter the certificate holder cannot be further harassed to prove his caste/ community in any other manner. In the instant case, the caste certificate issued in favour of the 3rd respondent was not cancelled by the competent authority and still holds good. The employer-University had accepted the certificate, which was issued by the competent authority on the basis of the judgment of this Court, which was the law then prevailing.

42. No doubt the guidelines issued by the Government of India under the Presidential Orders referred to supra are operating the field at the relevant point of time. But, it is not known whether such guidelines are made known to all the authorities empowered to issue the caste certificates. At any rate, it view of the decision of this Court in Ushakiran ''s case, which is applicable at the relevant point of time, the Tahsildar/MRO cannot be found fault with.

43. Be that as it may, when there was no fraud or misrepresentation committed by the 3rd respondent in obtaining the caste certificate and she was fairly placed all the material before the Tahsildar /MRO and the Tahsildar/MRO had issued the certificate on the basis of the caste certificate issued to her husband and on the basis of the decision of this Court in Ushakiran''s case which was the state of law prevailing at that point of time and as the said certificate has been accepted by the University, the same having not been cancelled by any authority subsequently, and the judgment of the Apex Court in Valasamma''s case being subsequent in point of time and in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad''s case, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of appointment made in favour of the 3rd respondent particularly after a lapse of 13 years. Even on equity also, justice demands that the appointment of the 3rd respondent be not set at naught at this point of time.

44. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions of the parties and the factual aspects of the matter involved, we are of the opinion that both the writ appeals must succeed and the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside.

45. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ appeals are allowed and the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.