(1) This is a petition for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings c/324/79 - 80 dated 25 - 3 - 1982 issued by the 1st respondent.

(2) The petitioner was admitted to the government polytechnic, nandyal in l. C. E. Course in 1978 and appeared for final examination in july, 1981 and for the subject to strcutural engineering on 27 - 1 - 1982. The forefathers of the petitioner were from srikakulam area and they migrated to various places. It appears the grand - father of the petitioner went over to nandyal. The petitioner is a valmiki and applied for seat in the polytechnic as valmiki. The tahsildar, nandyal gave a certificate stating that the petitioner belongs to valmiki community which was a scheduled tribe. The director of tribal welfare issued an order that valmiki community of kurnool district should not be considered as scheduled tribe and the community in the agency tracts alone are entitled to be treated as schedule tribes and directed the 1st respondent to cancel the admission. Pursuant to the same the 1st respondent cancelled the admission. Thereupon the petitioner filed wp no 402 of 1981 and this writ petition was allowed on 18 - 6 - 1981 as the order was passed with out notice to the petitioner. Thereafter the 1st respondent issued a show - cause notice dated 10 - 9 - 1981 and the explanation was submitted by the petitioner. The 1st respondent by order dated 25 - 3 - 1982 cancelled the petitioner's admission.

(3) In the impugned order dated 25 - 3 - 1982 pssed by the 1st respondent it was stated that the petitioner was provisionally admitted on the basis of the information furnished by him in his application form in which it was specifically mentioned that he belongs to scheduled tribe against column 9 (a) of the application form. It is stated that the certificate issued by the authority viz. , the tahsildar, nandyal is not in the prescribed form. It is futher stated that even if the tahsildar issued such a certificate since the benefits of such a social status are enjoyed by the petitioner, it is for him to prove the said social status and he cannot shift the entire responsibility to the tahsildar. The petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that he or his parents belong to agency tracts and on the contrary the tahsildar himself mentioned in the social status certificate that the student is a resident of nandyal town in kurnool district. The copy of the service register of r. K. "narasimhulu, the father of the petitioner and the elementery grade teacher's certificate issued to the mother of the petitioner also do not show that the petitioner or his parents belong to agency tracks. Inspite of giving an opportunity the petitioner could not produce any evidence to prove that he or his parents or grand - parents belong to agency tracts on or before the inclusion of the valmiki tribe of the agency tract in the list of scheduled tribes further it is conculded that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to prove that he or his parents belong to valmiki tribe of agency tracts and thus it is established that false information was furnished in his application for admission and produced a false caste certificate and virtually obtained admission against a seat reserved for scheduied tribe candidate.

(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the certificate issued by the tahsildar pursuant to g. O. Ms. No. 147 dated 27 - 4 - 1977 is conclusive and the expression "valmiki community" (in the agency tracts) does not stipulate the present residential qualification in the agency tracts and further in any event the 1st respondent is precluded from cancelling the admission in view of the applicability of doctrine of equitable estoppel. The learned government pleader contended that as the petitioner belongs to nandyal in kurnool district, the assertion and the certificate issued by the tahsildar is false and as such the impugned order cancelling the admission is proper and valid in the circumstances. Further, the petitioner is not entitled have the protection of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in view of fraud and misrepresentation.

(5) To appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to get at the relevant provisions including the g. Os issued from time to time. Section 4 of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes orders (amendment) act 1976 (act no. 108 of 1976) provides that the scheduled tribes orders are amended in the manner and extent specified in the second schedule. Part i of the schedule is in respect of andhra pradesh. Item 31 mentions 'valmiki' (in the agency tracts). G. O. Ms. No. 147 dated 27 - 4 - 1977 issued by the government of andhra pradesh empowers the revenue officer not below the rank of the tahsildar or revenue divisional officer to issue caste/community certificate in respect of the scheduled tribe communities mentioned therein and in the list of communities item 12 pertains to valmiki. G. O. Ms. No. 245 dated 30 - 6 - 1977 in continuation of g. O. Ms. No. 147 dated 27 - 4 - 1977 turnishes the guidelines authorising (he officers and others to identify tribal candidates for issue of caste/community certificates for the purpose of availing scholarships and educational concessions etc. , to the students belonging to scheduled tribes. In annexure ii to the said g. O. Item 26 relates to valmiki and under the 4th column designated as "chief places of habitation" east godavari. Visakhapatnam and srikakulam districts are mentioned. G. O. Ms. No. 489 dated 4th may. 1977 relates to rules for admission to the medical colleges in the state of andhra pradesh. There is a reference to the scheduled tribes in the list of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in appendix i and item 31 mentions "valmiki (in the agency tracts). In the note appended to the appendix in para 20 valmiki community is described as follows : -

"this is a distinct tribal community inhabiting the scheduled areas of visakhapatnam, srikakulam and east godavari districts which are generally known as agency areas. Valmikis are also known as (domt'). This tribe should not be confused with the 'boya community or scheduled castes who also style themselves as valmikis and are residing outside the scheduled areas"

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of tha supreme court in shri krishan v. Kurukshetra university (1) air 1976 s c 376 wherein it is held that when the candidate is allowed to appear at the examination the university authorities have no jurisdiction a cancel his candidature for the examination. If the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the examination, then by force of the university statute the university had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate. In this decision it is evident that the defects in the admission form were not taken note of inspite of the fact that they could have been discovered at the time of admission with due diligence and in that event the authorities cannot revoke the admission at a later stage. In harphoo! singh v. State (2) air1981 raj. 8 in the context of the applicability of doctrine of equitable estoppel regarding the admission to medical college, it is held as follows: -

"in addition to the above, yet another factor which has weighed with this court, is that the admission was given on the basis of the certificate of district magistrate, ceitifying the petitioner to be a member of the scheduled tribe and the respondents could not detect it for 3 long years by which time almost major part of the m. B. B. S. , course was over, and now it would be national waste, in addition to the loss of the career of a boy, if the petitioner is deprived from his enrolment in the medical college. The respondents are even otherwise estopped from unseating him now on principle of "estoppel".

In inderprakash v. Dy. Commissioner delhi (3) air 1979 delhi 87 originally the petitioner was admitted on a provisional basis subject to verification in 1971 on the basis that he belonged to scheduled caste. When the student was in the 1st year of the m b b s course the provisional admission was cancelled as the verification revealed that the petitioner did not belong to scheduled caste but ultimately in 1972 the cancellation was rescinded and the student was provisionally readmitted subject to the decision of the deputy commissioner on the petitioner's representation. The process of verification went on between 1972 and 1975 and on the basis of the finding of the commissioner that the student does not belong to scheduled caste, the admission of the petitioner was cancelled by an order dated 9th june, 1975 in the context of considering the applicability of equitable estoppel in the facts and circumstances of this case it was held as follows : -

"i would, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that on account of inordinate delay of about four years, during which the petitioner continued his studies, the authorities would be disentitled to revoke the admission of the petitioner, whatever may have been the nature of the petitioner's representation and whether or not the petitioner did or did not belong to the scheduled caste"

It is true in this case that the admission was provisional from to time time but however due to undue delay caused in the verification process wide observations were made. The blame is squarely on the authorities for the delay and on account of the delay it is held that the authorities are precluded from reopening the issue whatever be the result of the verification. In jagannadham v. Dt. Collector, kurnool (4) 1965 (2) an w. R. 437 at the time of the provisional inclusion of the petitioner in the list of approved candidates by the service commission certain certificates were taken as the basis and in the certificate there was no separate mention of the marks obtained by the petitioner in the type writing examination. After some correspondence it came to light that the candidate did not get the requisite marks in the type - writing examination. After he was appointed and served in the post for more than two years he was sought to be ousted on the ground that he did not get the requisite marks. In that context applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel, gopalakrishnan nair j held as follows : -

"if the petitioner was told in 1959 or 1960 or even in 1961 that he was not eligible he could have explored other avenues of government service before he became age barred. When the impugned order was passed he was 27 years old, two years older than the maximum age prescribed for entering government service. The petitioner entered service in the faith that he was regularly and validly appointed and that he could continue in service untif the age of superannuation. That faith and hope have now been rudely dashed to the ground"

In nageswararao vs. A p agriculturs university (5) 1968 (1) an w r. 85 the petitioner was admitted to the b sc. , agricultural course as a scheduled caste candidate since he belongs to 'anamuk' caste during acadamic year 1977 - 78. 1n 1980 it came to light that he did not belong to scheduled caste and he was admitled lo the course as a scheduled caste candidate basing upon the social status certificate issued by the tahsildar and the asst. Engineer, sub - division khammam. Afler completion of the course in b. Sc. When the student asked for a certicate as to his complelion of course with a view lo attend the enlrance examination for admission to m sc. (agriculture) his certificale was denied by the authorities. In thai conlext seetharam reddy, held as follows at page 92 :

"considering the above conspectus what could be said to emerge is that though the initial admission to the course was provisional and para 17 of the prospeclus may even clothe the respondents wilh the power to cancel the admission at any stage if found to be repugnant to the rules of regulations, it would not, however, in my judgment, justify the cancellations of the admission on the basis of a verification regarding the status of the petitioner after a long period of four years. It is not open to the authorities to turn round at the fag - end of the final year to construct his career on the basis of the discrepance in the caste certificale which could have been discovered long back but for the derelict observance of the rules. Doubtless, the right to cancel the admission reside in the authority under the rule : but it should be exercised within a reasonable time, which cannot be strait jacketted as it depends upon circumstances of each case.

"this will be so even in a case where admission is said to have been secured on fraudulent misrepresentation for it is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved'' in writ appeal no 52 of 1977 dated 1st november, 1977 the division bench of of this court held that in a situation where the student passed the final examinalion in the m b b s course, the question of cancelling the admission does not arise as the qualification obtained by him cannot be derecognised. The admission was sought to be cancelled on the ground that he made a misrepresentalion that he belonged to the scheduled tribe and certificate produced by him at the time of admission was found to be false. It is also further observed that it will however be open to the respondents in future lo determine the question as to whether he belongs to scheduled tribe or backward community for the purpose of employment and other benefits. In this case even though five years elapsed after the alleged fraudulent representation was made the doctrine of estoppel was not invoked. In w p no. 3816/1979 dated 30th january, 1977 lakshmaiah, j propounded a new dimension viz. , that even if ihe admission is going to be cancelled on the issue of misrepresentation the question of giving seat to some other person does not arise as the student has already completed five years of study and that now no purpose will be served except vindicating the law. It is also further observed that it is essential that the authorities should exercise their power wilhin reasonable time after the admissions are over. In mahamood ali khan vs. Board of intermediate education (6) 1975 (1) aplj 47 (short - notes) it was held that where the admission was sought on the basis of forged s s l c certificate the grievance cannot be made when such admission is cancelled on the facts coming to light.

(7) The doctrine of estoppel is founded upon the principle that when a person or authority makes any representation or initiates or acquiesces in any action such person or authority is precluded from resiling from such position. The fraudulent action or representation on the basis of which action is taken does not have the cushion of doctrine of equitable estoppel. The reasonable time for initialing action should be considered from the date of detection of fraud. When the fraud is impenetrable or masked and did not come to light for a considarable period it is not possible to take action within the "reasonable period". The relevance of reasonable period is appropriate from the date when the fraud is discovered,

(8) The residental address of the petitioner isindicated in the application form and this should have alerted the authorities to probe into the matter at the slage of admission and the expression "valmiki'' followed by bracketed expression ( in the agency trats) should have provoked the authoriesto investigate into the residential address. Further the expression 'in the agency tracts' eludes precise connotation. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the present residence is not the criterion to deny benefit. The intent of this provision is that the origin is from agency tracts and the ancestors should have resided in agency tracts as distinct from valmikis of other regions. It is stated by the petitioner that the fore - fathers were from agency tracts of srikakulam and this is not controverted by relevant material. In the circumstances the respondents are estopped from cancelling the admission and further it is not established that the petitioner does not belong to valmiki (in the agency tracts) conclusively.

(9) The writ petition is allowed. No costs.