Madras High Court
J.Nagesh vs The Chairman on 28 November, 2022
W.P.No.230 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.No.230 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.263, 264 & 15463 of 2022
J.Nagesh ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
State Level Scrutiny Committee-II (FAC)/
Additional Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai – 600 003.
3.A.S.Mohanram,
Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Member Secretary (F.A.C),
State Level Scrutiny Committee – II,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Chennai – 600 009. ..Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to order of the 1st respondent made in Proceedings No.5679/CV-
3(1)/2017-20 dated 29.12.2021, to quash the same and to consequently
direct the respondents to treat the community certificate of the petitioner of
belonging to Hindu Kattunaikken Community as genuine and to extend all
benefits both service and monetary.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondent : Ms.C.Sangamithirai
Special Government Pleader for R1
Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, Standing Counsel for R2
R3 – Served – No Appearance
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order of the State Level
Scrutiny Committe dated 29.12.2021 concluding that the community
certificate issued to the petitioner, certifying that he belongs to Hindu
Kattunaikken, a Scheduled Trible is not genuine.
2.The father of the petitioner, Janakiraman was favoured with a
certificate to the effect that he belongs to Hindu Kattunaicken, a Scheduled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
Tribe community on 07.07.1954. Subsequently, the Tahsildar, Trichy
granted a certifcate to the same effect to the petitioner on 31.10.1975.
Based on that certificate, the petitioner was appointed as Apprentice
Chargeman with Railways under the quota reserved for Schedule Tribe.
Thereafter, the petitioner was required to produce a fresh community
certificate and the petitioner also obliged by proceeding a community
certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy on 12.05.1989.
The said certificate was sought to be verified by the employer and the same
was required to be done by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Trichy passed an order on 08.11.2011 concluding that
the claim is not genuine.
3.The petitioner filed W.P.No.19073 of 2012, challenging the said
report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. This Court on 06.01.2014 set
aside the order along with a charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent
based on the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 08.11.2011 and
directed the State Level Scrutiny Committee to verify the community
certificate and pass orders. There upon, the State Level Scrutiny Committee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
verified the certificate and by order dated 03.12.2014 concluded that the
claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Kattunaicken community is
genuine and directed him to apply afresh for a certificate. Upon such
direction, the petitioner applied for a fresh certificate and was favoured with
a fresh certificate on 17.06.2015. The order of the State Level Scrutiny
Committee dated 03.12.2014 upholding the claim of the petitioner was put
to challenge by a 3rd party in W.P.No.4408 of 2015.
4.The main contention that was raised was that the State Level
Scrutiny Committee has not followed the procedure prescribed in Kumari
Madhuri Patil Vs. the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare reported
in 1994 (6) SCC 241 and in Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham and Others
reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333. A Division Bench of this Court without
going into the maintainability of the petition at the instance of a 3rd party
found that, since the procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had not been followed, the orders are liable to be set aside. The Division
Bench, thus, remanded the matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for
further consideration, after obtaining a report from the Anthropologist and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
the District Level Vigilance Cell. Pusuant to the said order, a reference was
made to Anthropologist as well as the District Level Vigilance Cell. Both
the Anthropologist and the District Level Vigilance Cell concluded that the
claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Kattunaikken community is
genuine.
5.The State Level Scrutiny Committee however, conducted an
enquiry thereafter, and based on wholly irrelevant material, overlooking the
specific directions of this Court concluded that the claim of the petitioner
that he belongs to Hindu Kattunaikken, a Scheduled Tribe community is not
genuine. Hence, the petitioner is forced to approach this Court once again.
6.As of today, the functions of the State Level Scrutiny
Committee and the procedure to be followed by the State Level Scrutiny
Committee are well laid out both by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
Court. This Court in G.Venkitasamy and another Vs. the Chairman,
State Level Scrutiny Committee, after exhaustive analysis of the
provisions of various Government orders as well as the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil has concluded as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
29.From the aforestated analysis, it is manifest that
the authorities are required to investigate, identify and conduct
the enquiry in the following manner:
i)The authority competent to issue the community
certificate, on receipt of the application, shall investigate the
application in an open and transparent fashion, affording
opportunity of hearing.
ii)The candidate shall have full liberty to explain the
documents placed by him or collected by the investigating
agency and he shall have opportunity to cross examine the
witnesses, if required. The entire exercise shall be completed
at the earliest, preferably, within a period of three months.
iii)On receipt of the community certificate issued by
the competent authority, the candidate or any other party
interested therein may refer the matter to the State Level
Scrutiny Committee for verification.
iv)On receipt of the application for verification, the
State Level Scrutiny Committee shall refer the matter to the
Vigilance Cell for enquiry.
v)The Vigilance Cell, as constituted, shall investigate
into the social status claim of the applicant, visiting the local
place of residence and original place from which the candidate
hails and usually resides. The Vigilance Officer, assisted by
the Inspector of Police, shall verify all the documents and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
collect relevant facts in an open and transparent manner from
all the relevant places such as school, locality, etc. and persons
such as parents and close relatives and also examine the
school officials, parents/guardians and other close relatives of
the concerned caste. The Vigilance Cell shall also record the
anthropological and ethnological traits and rituals, customs,
mode of marriage and other ceremonies of the community
claimed by the candidate. Thereafter, on receipt of explanation
from the candidate, on a proper examination of the same, a
reasoned report shall be submitted to the State Level Scrutiny
Committee.
vi)The State Level Scrutiny Committee, on receipt of
the Vigilance Cell report, if it is found adverse, shall issue a
show cause notice to the candidate with a copy of the report
and all the documents submitted by the Vigilance Cell to the
concerned candidate, calling upon him to file his
reply/explanation/representation and also express his intention
to examine witnesses, if necessary. In the event, the report
supports the claim of the candidate, the State Level Scrutiny
Committee shall not proceed further, but, to pass the order.
vii) The State Level Scrutiny Committee, on
completion of the enquiry, shall send a copy of the
proceedings/order to the candidate within a period of two
weeks.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
viii) Such verification shall be completed within a
period of two months, after receipt of the Vigilance Cell report,
preferably, by day-to-day proceedings [See paragraph 13(9) of
Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra)].
7.The conclusions of the Division Bench are in consonance with
that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayaram's case reported in 2011 (6)
SCC 192. It is, thus, clear that once the District Level Vigilance Cell
concludes that the claim of the petitioner is genuine, the State Level
Scrutiny Committee has to accept it and it has no power to proceed with
further enquiry unless it records are finding that the report is fradulent. Our
search for such reason in the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee
ends in vain. Almost all irrelevant material has been taken into account in
support of such conclusion that the certificate is not genuine.
8.The instances pointed out by the Committee in its order in
Paragraph 14 are matters, which have to be ignored while considering the
claim of the communal status of a person. Certain wrong descriptions are
bound to be there but, once the District Level Vigilance Cell had taken into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
account of these documents and had come to the conclusion that the claim is
genuine, the State Level Scrutiny Committee cannot have a re-enquiry to
conclude that the claim is not genuine.
9.It is clear to our mind that the State Level Scrutiny Committee
has transgrersed its powers and its conclusions or more in breach of the
directions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters
relating to the verification of community certificates. We therefore, allow
this Writ Petition and set aside the order of the State Level Scrutiny
Committee. The certificate issued to the petitioner is held to be genuine.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The
employer will release the service benefits of the petitioner forthwith.
(R.S.M.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
28.11.2022
kkn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
To:-
1.The Chairman,
State Level Scrutiny Committee-II (FAC)/
Additional Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai – 600 003.
3.A.S.Mohanram,
Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Member Secretary (F.A.C),
State Level Scrutiny Committee – II,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.230 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
KKN
W.P.No.230 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.263, 264 & 15463 of 2022
28.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
