Madras High Court
R.Kalyani vs The Tamil Nadu State Level ... on 28 November, 2022
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
IN 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
Writ Petition No.25598 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.27022 & 27023 of 2021
R.Kalyani ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009,
Rep. by its Chairman.
2. Food Corporation of India,
Regional Office,
No.8, Mayor Sathyamoorthy Road,
Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.
Rep. by General Manager ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
relating to the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee in Proceedings
No.5853/CV-6/2019-10, dated 11.10.2021 on the file of the first respondent
and the consequential order of termination passed by the second respondent
in proceedings No.E.1/3(3)/2017RK/SLVC dated 21.03.2019 quash the same
and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with
all attended benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For Respondents : Ms.C.Sangamithirai
Special Govt. Pleader, for R1
Mr.M.Imthias, for R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order of the State Level
Scrutiny Committee dated 11.10.2021, concluding that the Community
Certificate issued to the petitioner certifying that she belongs to Scheduled
Tribe Hindu Kurumans, is not genuine.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
2.The petitioner obtained a certificate to the effect that she belongs
to a Scheduled Tribe of Hindu Kurumans from the Tahsildar, Perambur,
Purasawalkam Taluk on 13.07.1984. She was appointed as a Messenger in
the Food Corporation of India, Cuddalore District Office on 29.04.1997, in
the quota meant for Scheduled Tribes. She was transferred to the Regional
Office at Chennai subsequently. The employer referred the Certificate for
verification to the District Level Vigilance Committee.
3. The District Level Vigilance Committee concluded that the
petitioner’s claim is not genuine vide its order dated 16.12.2004. This was
challenged by the petitioner in WP No.39569 of 2004, and the Writ Petition
came to be allowed by this Court on 26.07.2005 and the matter was referred
to the three Member District Level Vigilance Committee. In the meantime,
the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.108 under which the State Level Scrutiny
Committee was constituted. Therefore, the State Level Scrutiny Committee
took up the matter for examination and called for a report from the District
Level Vigilance Cell. The District Level Vigilance Cell submitted a Report on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
29.06.2018 to the effect that the claim of the individual that she belongs to
Hindu Kurumans is genuine. However, the Anthropologist concluded that the
claim is not genuine.
4. Based on the same, the State Level Scrutiny Committee passed
an order concluding that the claim of the petitioner is not genuine on
08.03.2019. The said order was challenged in WP No.8850 of 2019, a
Division Bench of this Court after exhaustively considering the rival
contentions concluded as follows:
“28. In our view, therefore, a report from the
Tahsildar from the Shimoga District, Badhravathi,
Harabilicherry, Karnataka should be obtained confirming
whether the petitioner's family indeed belongs to “Hindu-
Kurumans” Scheduled Tribe Community in Karnataka. If such
a report is given in favour of the petitioner, the said
Community Certificate granted to the petitioner can be treated
as having given validly.
We are therefore of the view that the impugned order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
passed by the 1st respondent merely based on the cultural
traits of the petitioner as observed by the anthropologist
by itself was not sufficient and is therefore liable to be set
aside.”
After observing so this court remitted the matter to the State Level
Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration.
5. The State Level Committee took up the exercise of verification
pursuant to the order of the Division Bench referred to supra. A reference
was made to the Tahsildar, at Shimoga District seeking clarity on the
communal status of the petitioner. The Tahsildar, Shimoga District, sent a
reply stating that the father of the petitioner lived there and migrated to Tamil
Nadu in 1960-1961. He also expressed his inability to issue any firm opinion
since he had no documents justifying the claim of the petitioner. However, the
petitioner was able to produce the Community Certificate of his daughter and
son issued by the very same Tahsildar evidencing that they belonged to Hindu
Kurumans, a Scheduled Tribe Community.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
6.The State Level Scrutiny Committee which took up the enquiry
pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, in our opinion, has given a go by
to the directions of the Division Bench and stuck to the very same reasoning
it assigned in its order dated 08.03.2019, in the order that is impugned in this
Writ Petition also.
7. From the relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench
extracted above, it is clear that the Division Bench has directed the State
Level Scrutiny Committee to consider the other material available and not to
go by the opinion of the Anthropologist alone. Therefore, it becomes
obligatory on the part of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, to look into the
other material that is provided in the form of a Vigilance Cell Report which
has been totally sidelined. A perusal of the orders of the State Level Scrutiny
Committee impugned herein shows that the Report of the District Level
Vigilance Cell has not been considered at all and the Committee has gone by
the Report of the Anthropologist and the examination of the petitioner before
it by the Anthropologist Member of the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
This, in our opinion, is in clear violation of the orders of the Division Bench,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
cited supra.
8. Needless to point out that this Court has time and again held that
the report of the Anthropologist is only a supportive document and it cannot
be treated as a conclusive document, particularly in cases where a migration
has happened long back and the petitioner has been living in urban
environment for substantially long time. In the case on hand there is a clear
evidence to point out that the family of the petitioner has migrated to Chennai
even in the year 1960-1961 and thereafter the petitioner has been favoured
with the Certificates here by the Tahsildar, Puraisaiwakkam in 1984 itself.
Therefore, to rely upon the answers given by the petitioner to questions based
on the cultural habits of the Community cannot form the basis for
determination of her community.
9. Reference could be made to our judgment in WP No.2828 of
2022 dated 25.11.2022 in this regard, wherein we have held that the Report
of the Anthropologist could only be treated as another piece of material in
deciding the entire issue. In G.Venkitasamy and Another Vs. The Chairman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
State Level Scrutiny Committee reported in 2016 (1) MLJ 606, and in
T.K.Kariyappan and other Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny
Committee – II, in WP No.23397 of 2019, this Court had reiterated that once
the District Level Vigilance Cell concludes that the claim is genuine, the State
Level Scrutiny Committee cannot interfere with the said conclusion unless it
comes to the conclusion that the Report has been obtained fraudulently.
Despite our earnest search, we are unable to find any such conclusion
reached by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, in the order impugned in the
Writ Petition, to the effect that the Report of the District Level Vigilance Cell
is fraudulent.
10. In G.Venkitasamy and Another Vs. The Chairman State
Level Scrutiny Committee’s case, a Division Bench of this Court had clearly
pointed out that once the District Level Vigilance Cell concludes in favour of
the petitioner there can be no further enquiry, unless the State Level Scrutiny
Committee comes to the conclusion, that the report is fraudulent then it is
open to the Committee to issue notice to the petitioner and proceed further in
accordance with law. In the absence of such conclusion, we do not think that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
the State Level Scrutiny Committee was right in taking a different view from
that of the District Level Vigilance Cell.
11. We are therefore constrained to interfere and set aside the order
of the State Level Scrutiny Committee. We conclude that the Certificate
issued to the petitioner is genuine. The Writ Petition will stand allowed. The
employer second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with all
service benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (K.KUMARESH BABU, J.)
28.11.2022
Index: No
Internet: Yes
Speaking Order
jv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The General Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Regional Office, No.8, Mayor Sathyamoorthy Road,
Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25598 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
jv
Writ Petition No.25598 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.27022 & 27023 of 2021
28.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
