IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.01.2007
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU
W.P.No.35621 of 2005
and
W.P.M.P.No.38428 of 2005
N.Mohanam ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Collector,
Chennai.
3.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,
Southern Sector, Chennai,
Represented by GGM/Basin Manager,
Cauvery, Chennai. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to
proceedings No.22394/ADW-11/2000 dated 27.06.2005 issued
by the first respondent, quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.B.Ravi for
M/s.Hema Sampath
For R1&R2 :Mr.M.Dhandapani,AGP
For R3 :Mr.M.Vijayan for
M/s.Kins & Patridge
O R D E R
N.Mohanam S/o. Late Narasimhalu is the
petitioner. In order to avoid any confusion between the
petitioner and another person with the same name Mohanam,
the father’s name of the petitioner is noted.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
respondents came to perverse conclusion without any basis
that the petitioner do not belong to Scheduled Tribe and
there by he was dismissed from the service.
3. The petitioner is seeking for a direction by way
of writ of certiorari and quash the proceedings of the
first respondent.
4. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ
petition are:
According to the petitioner, he belongs to Hindu-
Konda Kapus community and it is notified as Scheduled
Tribe community.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, the third
respondent herein invited applications for appointment to
various posts including Khalasi Grade III. There were
eight vacancies and one vacancy was earmarked for the
scheduled Tribe candidates. Accordingly the list was sent
by the Employment Exchange sponsoring 10 Scheduled Tribe
candidates for one post. The name of petitioner is one
among the said 10 candidates. However the petitioner was
not selected under the Scheduled Tribe quota. The
petitioner was selected on merit in the open competition
and his employment is purely on the basis of merit and
ability as he was selected under unreserved quota. One
Mr.J.Raman, whose name is shown at Sl.No.3 out of 10 in
the list is selected under the scheduled Tribe quota.
The petitioner was appointed as Khalasi. His
probation was declared on 28.10.1985. Thereafter he was
upgraded and promoted upto the level of Operator Grade II.
While so, the third respondent for the reasons best
known to them called for the verification of the community
certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner attended
the enquiry. The Record Sheet as well as Transfer
Certificate of the school discloses that the petitioner
belongs to scheduled Tribe community. A detailed report
was submitted by Revenue Officials.
But the third respondent dissatisfied with the same
referred those certificates to the second respondent the
District Collector, Chennai for further verification
doubting that the petitioner has impersonated and used the
Community Certificate of another MOHANAM.
The second respondent vide his proceedings dated
04.06.1998, sent second report holding that the school
certificate of the petitioner is genuine and as per the
school certificate, he belongs to Scheduled Tribe
community. But the second respondent finally noted that
the petitioner do not belong to Scheduled Tribe community
as school certificate has no probative value.
The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.20741 of
1998. This Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal
before the first respondent, the State Scrutiny Committee
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department. Accordingly the
petitioner filed an appeal and the first respondent vide
proceedings No.22394/ADW-11/2000 dated 27.06.2005 held
that the allegation of the third respondent regarding the
genuineness of the school certificate is not established
and there is no impersonation and the school certificate
is genuine. But strangely the first respondent confirmed
the proceedings of the second respondent holding that the
school certificate has no probative value to confirm the
community certificate and the Community Certificates are
bogus.
5. The said order is impugned in this writ
petition.
6. Counter
Learned counsel for the first and second respondents
filed counter.
The counter is filed by the Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat.
It is stated in the counter that the petitioner has
obtained two community certificates from the Tahsildar,
Purasawalkam – Perambur Taluk that he belongs to Konda
Kapus Scheduled Tribe community. Based on the Community
Certificate, he was promoted to the post of Khalasi Grade-
II in the third respondent establishment, even though his
basic appointment was Grade-III Khalasi against unreserved
quota.
It is the contention of the respondents that
originally the petitioner was recruited under unreserved
quota in the year 1984, but got promoted in the year 1989
under reserved quota for scheduled Tribes.
It is stated that the second respondent herein caused
verification of the genuineness of the Konda Kapus
Community Certificate issued to the petitioner. The
Tahsildar, Purasai-Perambur initially enquired into the
matter and sent a report after verifying the school
records, where he studied and after conducting the
enquiries in the locality and the report discloses that
the petitioner belongs to Konda Kapus.
It is further stated in Para 4 of the counter that on
the basis of the report of Tahsildar, Pursai Perambur, the
District Collector, Chennai sent a verification report to
the third respondent stating that the petitioner belongs
to Konda Kapus community. It is further stated that the
Deputy Manager of the third respondent establishment
raised doubts about the veracity of the community
certificate produced by the petitioner and again referred
the matter doubting impersonation and in the re-enquiry
the Tahsildar sent another report dated 18.05.1998 to the
second respondent after conducting discreet enquiry. It
is stated that on the basis of re-enquiry report, the
second respondent came to the conclusion that the
individual do not belong to Konda Kapus and declared that
the two community certificates were forged certificates as
necessary records are not available and consequently
cancelled the community certificates vide proceedings
No.P4/63082/97 dated 04.06.1998.
The petitioner filed writ petition and thereafter
made an appeal before the first respondent. It is stated
that the State Level Scrutiny Committee examined all the
relevant documents and disclosed that the Primary School
Certificate issued by the Corporation Middle School,
Sivarajapuram shows that the petitioner’s community was
entered as Konda Kapus and it is listed under the
scheduled Tribe.
In Para 5 of the counter, it is stated that the
petitioner’s mother Tmt.Savithri do not belong to Konda
Kapus community but belongs to Mudaliar community. Hence
verification process is confined only to the community of
his father. It is further stated that the petitioner has
not produced any documents relating to his father to show
that his father belongs to Konda Kapus community. Until
and unless the community status of his father is properly
arrived and confirmed, the petitioner cannot be treated as
Konda Kapus community and since there is no documentary
evidence relating to his father, the State Level Scrutiny
Committee was unable to accept the contention of the
petitioner that he belongs to Konda Kapus community.
According to the respondents, various documents are
produced before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and
they are the School Certificate, Community Certificate
issued by the Tahsildar, Transfer Certificate, Self
Affidavit filed etc. by the petitioner.
It is stated that the Anthropologist who examined the
petitioner has also reported that the petitioner is not
aware about the tribal characteristics of the Konda Kapus
community. Therefore the State Level Scrutiny Committee
concluded that the petitioner do not belong to Konda Kapus
community.
Thus the main contention of the respondents is that
the petitioner did not produce any certificate to prove
that his father belongs to Konda Kapus community. But
came to a conclusion that the mother of the petitioner
belongs to Mudaliar Community and in fact there is no
document to come to the said conclusion.
The third respondent also filed a counter.
7. Heard arguments on both sides.
8. The short point for determination is whether the
petitioner belongs to Konda Kapus community or not.
9. In a case of this nature, the Court is expected
to verify the documents and the reports of revenue
officials rather than the oral statements, the allegations
and the counter allegations or the rival contentions of
the parties.
10. The most important document is the Transfer
Certificate of the petitioner. The original Transfer
Certificate is produced and it is issued by the Government
of Tamilnadu, Department of School Education. The
petitioner studied in a Government Higher Secondary
School, Kodambakkam, Madras – 600 024. The Head Master of
school issued the Transfer Certificate on 26.12.1997. The
said certificate discloses the name of the petitioner, his
date of birth and his community as Indian, Hindu,
Kondakapus. In fact the genuineness of the certificate
has been admitted by the respondents even in their counter
and also in their report. But this document was not
considered by giving a flimsy reasons.
11. The next important document in the case is the
first Enquiry report by the Tahsildar and the District
Collector, Chennai, wherein it is stated that an
independent enquiry and verification was carried out in
the matter to know the genuineness or otherwise of the
claim the individual whether he belongs to Konda Kapus –
Scheduled Tribe and enquiries confirmed that the entries
in the record sheet as well as transfer certificate
disclose the petitioner as Konda Kapus and accordingly a
report confirming the status of petitioner as a scheduled
Tribe had been sent. During the first enquiry and re-
enquiry, it was found that the school certificates
produced by the petitioner are bonafide documents
confirming to counterfoils of school records and they are
not bogus as alleged by third respondent. The report in
Para 5 of the proceedings also discloses that the
allegation that there is mis-use of other N.Mohanam’s
certificate by the petitioner is also not founded on
facts.
12. In this case, there is one another person by
name N.Mohanam S/o of Natesa Mudaliar studied in a
different school whereas the petitioner N.Mohanam S/o of
M.Narasimhalu studied in the school concerned.
13. The Collector has given a comparative table of
both as shown below:
N.Mohanam ONGC N.Mohanam UCO
Bank
1. Father's K.Narasimhalu Natesa Mudaliar
Name
2.Mother's Savithri Vembuli
name
3. Community Kondakapus Sengunthar
Mudaliar
4. Native Rangayapalli village Arulappadi
Place Pallipattu Taluk Village
Thiruvannamali
Taluk
5. Name N.Mohanam N.Mohanamurthy
6. School 1 to 8th Std. 1 to X Std.
Corporation Middle School, Govt. High
Sivarajapuram, Chennai – School, Katpadi.
12.
9 to X Std.
Govt. High School,
Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24.
14. Thus there is a confusion for the third
respondent whether the petitioner, who is the son of
K.Narasimhalu has impersonated and produced any
certificate belonging to N.Mohanam S/o Natesa Mudaliar.
In fact there is no reason to have any confusion.
15. In this case, the documentary evidence is
available through the school certificates and they are in
favour of the petitioner. The local enquiries by the
Tahsildar also are in favour of the petitioner. They are
not taken into confidence.
16. However the report of the Collector discloses
that the two Community Certificates issued by the two
revenue authorities appears to be not correct, as the
respective files in which it is purported to be issued are
not available for verification and since those files are
not available, the Collector came to a conclusion that the
certificates are bogus. It is a wrong conclusion. This
observation is bad and is liable to be rejected. If the
files in the Government office are not available the truth
and the facts revealed through other public documents and
Field Enquiry cannot be buried and rejected.
17. I have minutely gone through the report of the
Collector, which is the basis for holding that the
petitioner do not belong to Schedule Tribe and on the
basis of this proceedings, the first respondent issued the
orders impugned in this writ petition.
18. The orders of the Collector are not acceptable
for three reasons:
The collector held that the mother of the petitioner
belongs to Mudaliar community, whereas there is no
document to prove the community of the father. In this
case even there is no document to prove the community of
the mother also. It is on the basis of oral statement. In
fact the revenue authorities are the proper officials
under the Rules to decide the community of the individual
as per their record and enquiries. When there are no
documents either to prove the community of the mother or
the father, the Collector comes to a conclusion that the
mother belongs to Mudaliar community, whereas there is no
proof with regard to the community of the father.
Therefore a perverse finding has been given by the
Collector.
The other reason is that it is not for the Collector
to conclude that the School Records are not of probative
value. In fact, the school records are the most vital
documents whenever any student has been admitted in the
school either at the elementary level or at the high
school level. The community of the student will be entered
in the school documents, so also the date of birth are
entered in the school documents. Basing on the entries of
these school certificates, the disputed question with
regard to the community or the date of birth of the
individual will be decided. When the school certificates
are disclosing that the petitioner belongs to Schedule
Tribe community, it is absurd for the Collector to
conclude that it has no probative value. When the
Collector has found that the school certificates are
bonafide documents and the petitioner has not misused and
not impersonated the correction, ought to have issued the
proceedings in favour of the petitioner, but he did not do
so. The action of the Collector are highly questionable
and he is cautioned to be more careful in future and avoid
such mistakes.
Further the observations of the Collector that since
the records are not available in the Tahsildar’s office,
the community certificate issued by the Tahsilar are bogus
is not in good spirit. Can we disbelieve the truth, if
the files in the Collector office are misplaced or
missing. It is for the concerned Collector to answer and
rectify the mal administration. It is nothing but bad
governance and mal administration and such officials must
be properly instructed by the Chief Executive of the State
to apply proper judicial and administrative mind and do
justice to the citizen more so to the under privileged. I
have no hesitation to condemn the approach of Collector
and registry is directed to communicate this order to the
Chief Secretary of the State for suitable action.
19. The observations of the first respondent that
during the enquiry the petitioner was not able to give the
tribal characteristics of the Konda Kapus Community during
anthropological examination is immaterial. Should they
decide the issue on the basis of documents or as per their
whims and fancies. The reasoning is totally misconceived
and is created to reject the genuine claim of petitioner
to get over the documentary evidence.
20. The various observations made in the impugned
order are not sustainable. They are not convincing. The
documentary evidence placed before the State Level
Committee and the said documents viz. School certificate,
Community Certificate prima facie clearly established that
the petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community.
The earlier report of the revenue authorities confirm the
same. But for the reasons best known to the third
respondent further enquiry was held. In the re-enquiry
also, it was confirmed that the school certificates and
the discreet enquiries in the locality established that
the petitioner belong to Scheduled Tribe community.
Despite of all this truthworthy evidence perversive orders
are issued without any basis and on personal reasoning.
21. Under those circumstances, the Court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case to allow the prayer of the
petitioner and to set aside the orders issued by the first
respondent.
22. In the considered opinion of the Court, an
exemplary cost should be awarded in favour of the
petitioner against the respondents, but the learned
Government Advocate made a sincere request not to award
cost because the authorities have passed orders without
knowing the consequences and they have no intention or
malice to pass any order.
23. Considering the same, the writ petition is
allowed and the order issued by the first respondent is
set aside. No costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
svki
To
1.Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.District Collector,
Chennai.
3.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,
Southern Sector, Chennai,
Represented by GGM/Basin Manager,
Cauvery, Chennai.
4.The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.