BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23/02/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD).No.1654 of 2008 J.Jeya ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Vigilance Committee represented by its Chairman and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.Rani (R-2, impleaded as per order dated 19.06.2008 in M.P.(MD)No.2/2008. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the respondent committee in its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.H1/17577/2007, dated 08.12.2007 and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.C.M.Arumugam ^For 1st Respondent ... Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate. For 2nd Respondent ... Mr.D.Sadiq Raja :ORDER
R.SUBBIAH,J.
This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order passed by the respondent
committee in its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.H1/17577/2007, dated 08.12.2007.
2.The petitioner herein is holding the post of President of Pallapatty
Village panchayat. The Pallapatty panchayat has been notified as a reserve
panchayat for the post of President. Since the petitioner belonged to Hindu Adi-
Dravida by caste, she filed her nomination. One Rani also contested as her rival
candidate. In the said election, the petitioner won the post of village
President. The said Rani who lost in the election filed election original
petition against the petitioner’s election. That apart, the said Rani has also
given a petition to the District Collector against the petitioner as if the
petitioner is a Christian and hence, she does not belong to scheduled caste
community. The said Rani also filed writ petition before this Court and obtained
orders against the authorities. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court,
the issue with regard to the community of the petitioner was taken up by the
first respondent committee and notice for appearance was also issued to the
petitioner for enquiry. The petitioner personally appeared before the first
respondent committee and explained her status as she belonged to Hindu Adi
Dravida community. The petitioner was given in marriage to one Jeyasingh, who
belonged to Hindu Parayan community and hence she produced many documents in the
enquiry to support her claim before the first respondent committee. But the
first respondent committee passed the order dated 8.12.2007 stating that she
belongs to Christian Parayan community. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
3.We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
4.It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
that the petitioner belonged to Hindu Adidravidar community and that she was
married to one Jeyasingh who belonged to Hindu Parayan community. Out of the
wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to three children and all of them are living
as Hindus. To substantiate the contention, the petitioner has also produced
photos of her marriage function.
5.Per contra, it is the submission of the second respondent that the name
of the petitioner is Esther in the transfer certificate given by the Government
High School, Pallapatti village, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District and the
name of the petitioner was mentioned only as Jaya @ Esther. She has also not
changed her name as Esther through Government Gazette. The petitioner’s mother
belongs to Christian Parayar and hence she belongs to backward community.
Though the second respondent vehemently contended that the petitioner belongs
to Christian religion, the second respondent has not denied the fact that the
petitioner married one Jeyasingh, who belongs to Hindu Parayan community.
Further, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the main reason given by
the first respondent/committee for cancelling the certificate of the petitioner
is that the petitioner’s sister marriage was performed as per Christian rituals.
The petitioner had changed her name from Esther to Jeya. In our considered
opinion, the reason assigned by the committee for cancelling the community
certificate is not sound in nature. Particularly in the circumstance, the fact
that the petitioner got married one Jeyasingh, who belonged to Hindu Parayan
community as per Hindu rituals was not denied. Moreover, the first
respondent/Committee has not taken any effort to find out whether the petitioner
got baptism or not which is a crucial aspect to come to a conclusion that the
petitioner does not belong to Hindu Parayan community. Hence, we are of the
opinion, the first respondent/committee has not passed the impugned order based
on any credible evidence. In this regard, useful reference could be placed to a
judgment reported in (2010) 8 MLJ 739 SC (M.Chandra V.M.Thangamuthu and
another). The dictum laid down in the said judgment states that the person who
professes a religion different from Hindu and Sikh or the Buddhist religion
shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.
6.In the instant case also, the petitioner had asserted that she got
married to a person who belongs to Hindu Parayan community and she is leading
life as per the Hindu customs and the same was not disputed by the first
respondent committee. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion, the
community certificate cancelled by the first respondent/committee is purely
based on the irrelevant consideration and not based on a relevant consideration.
7.In the absence of any document to show that the petitioner got baptized,
we do not find any valid reason to cancel the community certificate issued in
favour of the petitioner. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by
the first respondent/committee is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is
hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
sms
To
The District Vigilance Committee
represented by its Chairman and
District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.