IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20/04/2004
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
Writ Petition No.4154 of 1997
P. Pathima Mary .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Union of India,
rep. by the
Government of Pondicherry
through its Secretary,
Pondicherry.
2. The Labour Officer,
Government of Pondicherry,
Karaikal.
3. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Kariakal. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For petitioner: Mr. C.K. Chandrasekaran
for M/s Row and Reddy, and Vaigai.
For respondents: Mr. T. Murugesan
Government Pleader (Pondicherry)
:ORDER
The petitioner prays for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records relating to the Order dated 12.12.1996 issued by the third
respondent, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to
declare the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Caste.
2. The petitioner contends that the Tahsildar of Karaikal had
refused to issue a certificate in favour of the petitioner as belonging to
Scheduled Caste inspite of disclosing the previous certificates to that
effect. The petitioner is employed as an Assistant Employment Officer and the
certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Kariakal as well as School records show
that she belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. Her father’s name is
Panneerselvam and she was named as Fathiama Mary as her parents wanted to name
her after the shrine at Velanganni, which is worshipped by people belonging to
all religions. As early as 15.3.1971, she also obtained Secondary School
Leaving Certificate which shows that she belongs to Harijan Commun ity. On
22.6.1979, the Deputy Tahsildar, Karaikal had also issued a Certificate
showing the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Caste. The Deputy Tahsildar
was the appropriate authority to issue the said Certificate at that point of
time.
3. The petitioner further states that she was married to one
Mr. Anthonisamy on 19.9.1982 at Kariakal. Though her husband is a Christian,
she has not changed her religion to Christianity. She continues to be a
Hindu. In 1995, she was required to submit a fresh Community Certificate by
the Department in which she was employed. Therefore, she had applied to the
Tahsildar, Karaikal on 7.2.1995 with all the requisite particulars of earliers
Certificates. However, there was delay in issuing the Certificate inspite of
reminders being sent. In the mean time, she obtained Community Certificate
dated 10.10.1996 from the Tahsildar, Nannilam. However, the Tahsildar at
Karaikal had issued a letter on 12.12.1996 declining to issue the Certificate
on the ground that after enquiry it was found that the petitioner did not
profess Hindu or Sikh religion and hence the above Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was
absolutely no evidence to show that she has converted to Christianity. Though
she has been given a Christian name, she continues to be a Hindu and her
marriage did not take place in Church. The said fact has also been certified
by a priest of St.Andrew’s Church at Kurumbagaram and the petitioner contends
that her marriage was only ‘Seerthiruthu Thirumanam’ by exchange of garlands
in the presence of elders and other relatives. In fact, their two children
have also not been baptized. Therefore, it was erroneous to state that the
petitioner had ceased to be a Hindu.
5. Learned counsel further contends that the Certificate
obtained by the petitioner in the year 1969 was issued by the competent
authority and hence unless and otherwise the said certificate is cancelled in
the manner known to law after due enquiry and in terms of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl.Commissioner,
Tribal Development and others [(1994)6 SCC 241], the old certificate validly
issued will continue to operate and the same cannot be ignored by any
authority. The requirement of certificates to be issued by Revenue Divisional
Officer will be effective only from 11.11.1989 and hence the certificates
issued earlier are binding on the authorities and have to accept the same.
6. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader for the
respondents and the learned Government Pleader admits that there was no
specific enquiry on the genuiness of the certificate already obtained by the
petitioner.
7. I have considered the submissions of both sides. On the
very admitted ground that there has been no enquiry regarding the Community to
which the petitioner belongs to, the Certificate originally issued in favour
of the petitioner shall continue to be valid unless it is cancelled after due
enquiry by a properly constituted Vigilance Committee in terms of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs.
Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (supra). On this ground
alone, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
8. On the issue as to whether the petitioner had converted to
Christianity or not, there is no positive evidence on the side of the
respondents to show that the petitioner had converted to Christianity. It is
needless to emphasis that mere name cannot establish the religion to which a
person belongs to. The names of great and historical literary, political and
religious persons irrespective of the caste, creed or religion are adopted by
people belonging to various beliefs, as a result of the respect which they
command by their achievements and popularity. For instance, if a person names
himself as “Milton”, who was a great poet or as “Eienstein”, a gre at
scientist, the said person does not become a Christian. Therefore, the names
alone cannot lead to the inference that they had converted to a different
religion. If there is any positive information of conversion, there has to be
a proper enquiry after notice.
9. That apart, the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in
State of Kerala and antoher vs. Chandramohan (2004 AIR SCW 1064) has held
that merely by the change of religion, a person will not cease to be a member
of Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, without expressing any conclusive opinion on
the issue as to whether change of religion will have any effect on the
Community to which he originally belonged to, it is an issue which has to be
examined in the light of that judgment. It is sufficient to point out that at
this stage, while dealing with the case of the petitioner, unless and
otherwise, the certificate which is now held by her is cancelled after due
enquiry, it shall continue to be operative.
10. It is sufficient to point out that till the Certificate
is cancelled, the earlier Certificate shall continue to operate and the
employer of the petitioner shall not in any manner deny the rights of the
petitioner on the strength of the said Certificate.
11. The Writ Petition is allowed subject to the above
observation. No costs.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
asvm
1. Secretary,
Government of Pondicherry
Union of India,
Pondicherry.
2. The Labour Officer,
Government of Pondicherry,
Karaikal.
3. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Kariakal.