IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12/11/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
W.P.NO.1496 OF 1997
N.Muthukumarasamy .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli Kattabomman District,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer/
Sub Collector, Tenkasi,
Tirunelveli Kattabomman District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Collector’s Office,
Madurai.
4. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office,
Madurai 625 002. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.N. Kannadasan
For Respondent 1-3 : Mrs.N.G. Kalaiselvi,
Special Govt. Pleader
Respondent-4 : Mr.M. Jagadeesan
- - -
:O R D E R
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. In this writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ directing the
respondents to forbear from proceeding with the verification of the community
status of the petitioner.
2. A community certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on
18.1.1984 by the Tahsildar, Madurai. Subsequently on the basis of such
community certificate, the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer under Life
Insurance Corporation, the respondent No.4. It has been stated in the
petition that the petitioner’s father, who was a resident of Tirunelveli
District, was employed under Railways on the basis that he belongs to
Kattunaicken community, which was considered as Scheduled Tribe in the entire
State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner’s father entered into service in August,
1951. The petitioner was born in Madurai district and as such he obtained
community certificate from the Revenue authorities in Madurai district. The
question having been raised by the employer before the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Tirunelveli, an enquiry was conducted by such Revenue Divisional
Officer, who submitted his report dated 21.1.1995 addressed to the District
Collector, Tirunelveli stating that the petitioner belongs to Kattunaicken
community. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects, the petitioner prays that
there is no further necessity to enquire into the matter afresh and the
petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the decisions reported in 1998 LW 105 (S.P. SAKTHI DEVI v. THE COLLECTOR OF
SALEM, SALEM AND 3 OTHERS) and 2002(1) CTC 403 (Dr.Ve. MANOHAR Vs. THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT AND ANOTHER). The assertion that the
petitioner’s father was employed on the footing that he belonged to
Kattunaicken community way-back in 1951 is not denied. The materials on
record and also the subsequent correspondence from the railway authorities to
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli district indicate that the
petitioner’s father was employed under Railways as he belonged to Kattunaicken
community.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been
indicated that since objections had been received from the Association, the
question had been raised and the enquiry was conducted.
5. After going through the materials on record and the averments made
in the petition and the counter, I am of the view that the question raised now
is covered by two decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is obvious that the petitioner is being subjected to repeated enquiries
without valid justification. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that
about half century back, the father of the petitioner was considered to be a
member of Kattunaicken community.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. However,
there would be no order as to costs.
Internet : Yes
dpk