IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18/02/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
Writ Petition No.12814 of 2003
E.Pachiappan .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector
and Chairman,
District Level Vigilance
Committee,
Chennai District,
Collector's Office,
Chennai-1.
2. State Bank of India,
rep. by its Deputy General
Manager/Personnel Officer,
Personnel Section,
Zonal Office,
86, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-1. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramadoss for
Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran,
Spl. Govt. Pleader-R1.
Mr.P.Sukumar-R2.
:O R D E R
By proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.4.2002, it was
concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Adi-dravida ( scheduled
caste) community, of course, after issuing a show cause notice dated
25.11.1997 as to why the community certificate relied upon by the petitioner
that he belongs to the Hindu Adi-dravida community should not be cancelled,
and conducting an enquiry. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the
above writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records relating to the proceedings bearing D.Dis.P4/9006/97 dated 11.4.2002
of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently to direct the second
respondent to treat the petitioner’s appointment as Messenger under general
category.
2. According to Mr.P.Sukumar, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent, the second respondent-Bank had, even at the time of
appointing the petitioner, verified the communal status of the petitioner only
based on the secondary school cumulative records, as he never produced the
community certificate before the second respondent. Only under such
circumstances, the second respondent-Bank had requested the first respondent
to verify the communal status of the petitioner.
3. Mr.Ramadoss, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is not
disputing the fact that the petitioner did not produce the community
certificate to show that he belongs to Hindu Adi-dravida either before the
second respondent-management at the time of appointment or before the first
respondent during the personal hearing on 2.4.2002 or before this Court in the
above writ proceedings.
4. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that even
though the petitioner could not produce the community certificate to prove
that he belongs to Hindu Adi-dravida, the second respondent should be directed
to treat the appointment of the petitioner as Messenger as the one made under
the general category by quashing the impugned proceedings of the first
respondent dated 11.4.2002.
5. I am unable to appreciate the above contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the
Apex Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MILIND reported in (200 1) 1 SCC 4,
wherein the Apex Court had held as follows:
” … States have no power to amend Presidential Orders. Consequently, a
party in power or the Government of the day in a State is relieved from the
pressure or burden of tinkering with the Presidential Orders either to gain
popularity or secure votes. Number of persons in order to gain advantage in
securing admissions in educational institutions and employment in State
services have been claiming as belong to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes depriving genuine and needy persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes covered by the Presidential Orders, defeating and frustrating
to a large extent the very object of protective discrimination given to such
people based on their educational and social backwardness. Courts cannot and
should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a
particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included
in any one of the entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under
Articles 341 and 342 particularly so when in clause (2) of the said article,
it is expressly stated that the said Orders cannot be amended or varied except
by law made by Parliament.”
6. In the instant case, even though the petitioner claims that he
belongs to Hindu Adi-dravida, he did not prove the same either by examining
any of his relatives or by producing any documentary evidence before the first
respondent at the time of personal hearing on 2.4.2002 , in which he had
admittedly participated. The request of the petitioner that his appointment
should be treated as the one made under general category further goes to show
that he has no sufficient proof to prove his communal status that he belongs
to Hindu Adi-dravida. In such circumstances, having been appointed under the
quota allotted to schedule caste community, the petitioner is not entitled to
seek a direction from this Court to the second respondent to consider his
appointment as the one made under general category. Since it is not in
dispute that the petitioner was given a fair and reasonable opportunity and he
failed to substantiate his case that be belongs to Hindu Adi-dravida, I do not
find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings
of the first respondent dated 11.4.200 2 and consequently, the writ petition
fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
ATR
To,
1. The District Collector
and Chairman,
District Level Vigilance
Committee,
Chennai District,
Collector’s Office,
Chennai-1.
2. The Deputy General
Manager/Personnel Officer,
Personnel Section,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
86, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-1.