IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 21-07-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.20042 of 2006 O.A.No.2053 of 1996 J.Shahul Ahamed .. Petitioner. Versus The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli Perunbidugu Mutharayar District. .. Respondent. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents relating to the proceedings in No.Pdl.(A2)701/95, dated 15.4.96 of the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1995 and direct the respondent to place the applicant in the aforesaid panel by giving him due ranking in the appropriate place. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Radhakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined in service in the year 1966 through the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission and he was allotted to the Revenue Department in Coimbatore District. At the time of his joining in service, the petitioner’s community was entered as “Indian-Muslim” based on the S.S.L.C. Certificate. In the year 1974, the petitioner was transferred to Trichy District. In the year 1976, he was included in the panel of Assistants. In the year 1992, the petitioner’s name was included in the O.A. category (vide S.No.152/76). In fact, the petitioner belongs to Muslim Labbai Community, which is a Bakward community. As per the Government Letter Personnel and Administrative Reforms, No.33300, dated 30.4.84, and based on the other facts, the petitioner’s caste has been entered as Labbai and classified as Backward community by the Ariyalur Revenue Tahsildar. Even as per the Government Orders in Tamilnadu Backward Classes and Noon Meal Scheme and Social Welfare Department, dated 30.5.89, it has been stated that all Sub Castes in Muslim religion are declared as belonging to Backward class. Without considering the said facts, the respondent had fixed the seniority of the petitioner. The seniority of the petitioner ought to have been fixed considering the fact that he had belonged to a Backward community as entered in his service register. The fixing of seniority of the petitioner without taking into account the relevant facts has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, both with regard to the monetary and other benefits. The persons who are juniors, as compared to the petitioner, have been placed above the petitioner in the post of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 1995. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.NO.2653 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.20042 of 2006.
3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the claims made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging his inclusion in the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1995, under the O.C. category. The petitioner had entered Government service, on 31.8.66, as a Junior Assistant in Coimbatore District. In the year 1974, he was transferred to Tiruchirappalli District Revenue Unit and he had joined duty, on 14.6.74, at the Taluk Office, Lalgudi. At the time of his joining in the Government service, no entry had been made in the service register as to his caste. The relevant column had been left blank. The word “Muslim-Labbai” has been clearly inserted in the year 1984, in a colour ink, which is different from the original entries in the Service Register. At the time of drawing the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1995, the petitioner had presented a petition stating that he should be given Backward community status in the list of Deputy Tahsildars to be drawn for the year 1995. However, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent in his D.Dis.12408/96, dated 18.4.96. The Sub Caste `Labbai’ has not been mentioned even in the copy of the transfer certificate furnished by him. Hence, it is clear that at the time of making the original entries in his Service Register, there were no records to show that he belonged to `Labbai’ community. The insertion has been made in his Service Register in the year 1984, showing that the petitioner belonged to “Muslim-Labbai” Community. The said entry has been attested by the Tahsildar, on 20.11.94, and it has been mentioned that the entry has been made based on the Government Memo No.33300/Per.M/84-1, P & AR, Department, dated 30.4.84. The Government in their letter No.33300/PER.M/84-1, dated 30.4.94, had instructed that entries for the change of classification of the community may be made in the Service Register by the head of office on the basis of the Community Certificate issued by a Tahsildar. However, in the case of the petitioner, there were no original entries as to his caste in the Service Register. Therefore, the insertion of the name of his community as “Muslim-Labbai” in his Service Register cannot be taken as a change of classification of community. Since, no valid entry has been made in his Service Register the community of the petitioner cannot be taken as “Muslim-Labbai”. Thus, the petitioner could be treated only under the O.C. category.
4. It has been further stated that according to G.O.Ms.No.397, P & AR Department, dated 14.4.81, a Government employee may apply for alteration of entry in the service records regarding his community, either within five years of his entry into Government service or within five years from the date of the publication of the notification in the Government Gazette. Since the entry of the petitioner’s community in his Service Register has not been done in accordance with the procedure established for the said purpose, such an entry made in the year 1984, cannot be considered to be in favour of the petitioner. Even though, “Muslim-Labbai” community is under the category of backward class, the petitioner cannot be taken to be belonging to Backward Class since the relevant entry in his Service Register had not been made in accordance with the procedures established by law. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for by him in the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that even if it is accepted that the entry in the petitioner’s service record was made in the year 1984, it is clear that the concerned Tahsildar had attested such an entry. No formal allegation has been made against the petitioner nor was there a formal charge framed against the petitioner, with regard to the entry made in the Service Register of the petitioner. When it is accepted that the Service Register could only be in the custody of the respondent, it is not shown as to how the petitioner would have had access to it for making a bogus entry. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Muslim-Labbai Community belongs to backward class. The mere fact that the petitioner had not entered his community in the Service Register as Muslim-Labbai, cannot disqualify him from claiming the benefits due to a person belonging to the backward class. In fact, by a Government order, dated 30.5.89, all Sub Castes of Muslims have been declared to be belonging to the Backward Class. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for being recognised in the category of Backward Class for being granted the appropriate service benefits.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that any alteration in the entries in the service register and for new entries to be made therein, the time limit prescribed is five years from the date of entry in service, as stated in G.O.Ms.No.397, Personnel and Administrative Reforms, dated 14.4.81. Therefore, if a Government employee seeks to make alterations in the entry in the Service Register, it is open to him to do so, within the time limit prescribed. Further, any alteration with regard to the community of a Government employee could be done only based on a Community Certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar. Whereas, in the case of the petitioner, the prescribed procedures have not been followed. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for being considered as a person belonging to a Backward Class, as claimed by him.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the community of the petitioner has been entered in the service register as Muslim-Labbai. It is also clear that the respondent has not initiated any action against the petitioner for making such an insertion in the Service Register. Further, the entry has been attested by the Tahsildar, Ariyalur. Further, it is not in dispute that all Muslims belong to the Backward Class, in accordance with the relevant Government Order issued for the said purpose.
8. No records are available to show that the petitioner has made a bogus entry in his service records or that the entry made therein, with regard to his Community has been done belatedly. No enquiry has been conducted in this regard, either against the petitioner or against the Tahsildar concerned.
9. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had retired from service, on 30.6.2002, on attaining the age of superannuation and that he would only be entitled to pensionary and other terminal benefits. If the petitioner had been considered as a person belonging to the backward class and if he had been placed in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildar’s for the year 1995, with the due ranking that he would have been entitled to, he would have been granted the appropriate service benefits. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation, he would be eligible only for the monetary benefits that would have accrued to him.
10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent to treat the petitioner as a person belonging to the Backward community of Muslim-Labbai and place him in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1995, by granting him the appropriate ranking for the purpose of payment of pensionary and other terminal benefits due to him. Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed. No costs.
csh
To
The District Collector,
Tiruchirapalli Perunbidugu
Mutharayar District