Madras High Court
G.Afrin Fathima vs The Secretary To The Government on 12 December, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
G.Afrin Fathima ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes and
Minority Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
3. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
4. The Joint Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennao – 600 003. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in
his Letter No.5842/PiNaSiPi/2014-1 dated 11.09.2014 and quash the
same and to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as B.C.M quota
and to appoint the petitioner as Typist as per the memorandum No.
4404/PSD-B/PSD-1/2014 dated 31.07.2014 issued by the second
Respondent and to issue posting orders and pass such further or other
orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman
For R1 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 to R4 : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
to quash the impugned order dated 11.09.2014 and to direct the
respondents to treat the petitioner as B.C.M quota and to appoint the
petitioner as Typist as per the proceedings dated 31.07.2014.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had passed M.Com. in
second class and Typewriting (English) Senior Grade and Typewriting
(Tamil) Senior Grade in second class. On seeing the notification No.9/13
dated 14.06.2013, the petitioner applied for the TNPSC Group-IV
services. Originally the petitioner belongs to Vellala Chettiar which
comes under Backward Community. In the year 2007, the petitioner
embraced Islam and changed her name through the Gazette Publication
dated 17.10.2007 and married one Mr.A.Meera Mohideen and the
marriage was solemnized in the year 2007. The Community Certificate
earlier was issued in the name of Anna Gomathi stating that the
petitioner's community as Vellala Chettiar. The Controller of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
Examination has issued Hall Ticket and the examination was conducted
on 25.08.2013 and the results were published on 28.07.2014. The
petitioner was directed to appear for counselling and the certificate
verification was held from 18.08.2014 to 21.08.2014. After verification,
it was informed that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits under
backward community, since the petitioner was converted into Islam. The
contention of the petitioner is that the similar issue was raised in
W.P.No.4209 of 2013 and this Court, vide order, dated 09.04.2014 has
held as under:
51.(xiii) The Apex Court also noted in paragraph 15
of Valsammapaul's case that in Khazan Singh vs.
Union of India, AIR 1980 Del 60, a Single Judge of
Delhi High Court had held that a Jat boy, on
adoption into a Scheduled Caste family, is entitled to
the benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution . In paragraph 37 of the judgment in
Valsamma Paul's case, it is categorically held that
the judgment in Khazan Singh's case did not lay the
law correctly.
Based on the above judgment, the petitioner submitted a representation
to serve a copy of G.O.Ms.No.85, Backward Classes, Most Backward
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, dated 29.07.2008. The
respondent, vide reply, dated 11.09.2014 informed that there is no
Government Order to the effect that the converted Muslims to be treated
as B.C.M and therefore they will be treated as other classes. Aggrieved
over the said communication, the petitioner has preferred this writ
petition.
3. The respondents No.2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit
stating that at the time of Certificate Verification, the candidate has
produced all the certificates in the name of G.Anna Gomathi, except her
Community Certificate. The petitioner got her Community Certificate in
the name as Afrin Fathima, w/o A.Meera Mohideen belonging to BC
(Muslim) from the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tirunelveli. Further the
candidate has also submitted the Gazette copy for notifying the change of
her name from Anna Gomathi to Afrin Fathima. It is further submitted
that there is no Government Order regarding the status of converted
Muslims till date. Hence, based on the Government Letter No.11373/
PNCN/2009, dated 04.02.2010, the converted Muslims are classified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
under “others” category. While considering the candidate as “others
category”, the petitioner was over aged i.e., 32 years (OC-Maximum age
limit 30 years) and her date of birth is 26.04.1981. Hence, the
application of the candidate, which was considered under “others”
category has been rejected for the post of Typist included in Group-IV
Services, due to over age. Hence, the petitioner was not allowed to
attend the counselling held on 21.08.2014 and the respondents prayed to
dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the
first respondent, Mr.V.Panneerselvam, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents No.2 to 4 and perused the records.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4
and the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the issue
was already considered by this Court in W.P.No.1019 of 2022, vide
order, dated 01.12.2022. The learned Single Judge has held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
Government of Tamil Nadu had issued as many as four letters whereby
laid down guidelines stating that the candidates who have converted to
Islam from other religion will be considered only under “others category”
and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
The Government of Tamil Nadu had in as many as
four letters laid down that the candidates who have
converted to Islam from other religion will be
considered only as “others category” (vide Lr No.
11373/Bc-MBCs/09-01 dated 04.02.2010, Lr No.
11373/BC-MBCs/09-02 dated 22.08.2012, Lr.No.
6907/BC_MBCs/2015-01 dated 04.05.2017 and
Lr.No.587/BC_MBCs/2019 dated 17.05.2019).”
Based on the letters, the petitioner is not entitled to the said certificate
which she was obtained prior to conversion. In a Public Interest
Litigation, the Hon’ble First Bench has considered the issue in W.P.
(MD)No.1009 of 2013 in M.K.Muzibur Ragman vs. UOI and others and
disposed of the writ petition as follows:
2. It is pointed out to us by the Learned Additional
Advocate General that the very issue has been
referred to a Larger Bench by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Centre, Public Interest Litigation
& Another V. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil)
No.180 of 2004 vide order dated 21.01.2011).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
we see no purpose in entertaining the petition, as the
very question is under the consideration before the
Supreme Court and the law laid down would be
applicable to all.”
11. When another Hon'ble Division Bench
subsequently took a contra view, the Government of
Tamil Nadu filed SLP challenging the same. The
Hon'ble Apex Court directed that till the next date of
hearing, the status quo shall be maintained (vide
order dated 24.09.2018 in SLP (Civil) Diary No.
2841/2018).”
6. Considering all these factors, the learned Single Judge has
held as under:
12.The issue can be approached from another angle. It is not as
if all Muslims have been recognized as belonging to Backward
Class in Tamil Nadu. G.O.Ms.No.85 BC, MBC and Minorities
Welfare (BCC) Department, dated 29.07.2008 catalogues only
the following list of Backward Classes (Muslims): “1.Ansar,
2.Dekkani Muslims, 3.Dudekula, 4.Labbais including Rowthar
and Marakayar (whether their spoken language is Tamil or
Urdu), 5.Mapilla, 6.Sheik, 7.Syed.” The petitioner has enclosed
the certificate issued by the Kazi of Tamil Nadu Government for
Ramanathapuram District on 25.12.2012. It reads that
Sathiyamoorthy S/o.Lakshmanan had embraced Islam on his
own volition and that he has joined the Muslim Jamat as a
Member and that he is following Islamic norms and principles.
This certificate declaring the petitioner's conversion only states
that the petitioner has become a Muslim and nothing more.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
G.Michael judgment of the Madras High Court also states that
when a Hindu gets converted to Islam, he becomes just a
Mussalman and his place in Muslim society is not determined
by the caste to which he belonged before his conversion. When
the Kazi does not declare that the convertee is to be treated as
belonging to the group of Labbais, I fail to understand as to
how a revenue authority of a secular government can fix the
converted individual in a particular slot or pigeon-hole. If as in
S.Ruhaiyah Begum, a Hindu belonging to the “others category”
gets converted to Islam and manages to obtain certificate as if
he or she belongs to one of the aforesaid notified groups, the
very purpose of social justice can be defeated by such clever
stratagems. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that only if
the convertee is already enjoying the benefit of reservation prior
to his conversion, then and then alone he can be considered as
BC (Muslim). As held in S.Ruhaiyah Begum, that exercise will
have to be undertaken only by the Government.
13.As observed in S.Yasmine case, a person cannot carry his
community of birth even after conversion. Whether such a
person should be given the benefit of reservation even after
conversion is a question that is pending adjudication before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
seized of the matter, it is not for this Court to uphold the claim
of the petitioner. It is for this reason, I am not persuaded by the
precedents cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner. The stand taken by the second respondent
Commission is correct. It does not warrant any interference.
14.The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
7. Following the said judgment, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained. Moreover,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
the issue is pending before the Supreme Court. At this stage, if any order
is passed granting the BC Certificate as if the petitioner belongs to
Vellala Chettiyar will amount to interfering in the judicial process that is
pending before the Supreme Court.
8. Hence, for the reasons stated above this Writ Petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
12.12.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
jbr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes and
Minority Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
3. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
4. The Joint Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennao – 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
S.SRIMATHY, J
jbr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.16450 of 2014
12.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
