Madras High Court
T.K.Kariyappan vs The Tamil Nadu State Level on 19 October, 2022
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.23161, 23162 & 23166 of 2019
1.T.K.Kariyappan
2.K.Kirubanandhan ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Level
Scrutiny Committee – II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009,
2.The Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
4.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003,
Rep. By its under Secretary ..Respondents
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
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 the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee in proceedings
No.10876/CVIII/2017-7, dated 25.07.2019 on the file of the 1 st respondent,
quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent to issue community certificate
to the petitioner and his two sons viz. K.Kirubanandhan and K.Mahendiran.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan
For Respondents : Mrs.C.Sangamithirai
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3
Ms.G.Hema, Standing Counsel for R4
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 Committee concluding that the petitioner does not belong to
Kurumans, a Scheduled Trible community as per the presidential
notification.
2.The petitioner sought for community certificate for himself and
his two sons. One of the sons namely, Mahendran is no more and therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
these proceedings are restricted to two petitioners, who are father and son.
The claim of the petitioners for a community certificate was rejected by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri on 28.11.2015. The said order was
subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.18360 of 2016 before this Court. A
Division Bench of this Court, which considered the claim concluded that the
rejection is improper and while setting aside the order directed the State
Level Scrutiny Committee to verify the applications and forward a report
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue certificates within a
period of one month thereafter.
3.Consequent upon such directions, the State Level Scrutiny
Committee launched investigation and the Vigilence Cell attached to the
State Level Scrutiny Committee was required to enquire into the communal
status of the petitioners and report. An Anthropologist was also appointed
with a directions to report on the communal status of the petitioners. The
Vigilance Cell by its report dated 28.12.2017, after adherring to the various
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in 1994 (6)
SCC 241, concluded that the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Trible
called “Kurumans”. The Anthropologist also was of the same opinion. The
State Level Scrutiny Committee chose to rely upon the reports of the
Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector of the year 2015 and
2017 respectively to conclude that the petitioners do not belong to the
Scheduled Trible community called “Kurumans”. It is this proceeding,
which is subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.
4.We have heard Mr.V.Elangovan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mrs.C.Sangamithirai, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mrs.G.Hema, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham &
others reported in 2011 (6) CTC 192 and the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in G.Venkitasamy and Another Vs. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee reported in 2016 (1) MLJ
606 to contend that once District Level Vigilence Committee and the
Anthropologist report is favourble to the petitioner, there is no question of
any further enquiry by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The learned
counsel would draw our attention to the following observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayaram's case in support of his submission:-
“22.Each Scrutiny Committee has a Vigilance Cell
which acts as the investigating wing of the committee. The
core function of the Scrutiny Committee, in verification of
Caste Certificates, is the investigation carried on by its
vigilance cell. When an Application for verification of the
Caste Certificate is received by the Scrutiny Committee, its
vigilance cell investigates into the claim, collect the facts,
examines the records, examines the relations or friend and
persons who have knowledge about the social status of the
candidate and submits a report to the Committee. If the
report supports the claim for caste status, there is no hearing
and the caste claim is confirmed. If the report of the
vigilance cell discloses that the claim for the social status
claimed by the candidate was doubtful or not genuine, a
show-cause notice is issued by the Committee to the
candidate. After giving due opportunity to the candidate to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
place any material in support of his claim, and after making
such enquiry as it deems expedient, the Scrutiny Committee
considers the claim for caste status and the vigilance cell
report, as also any objections that may be raised by any
opponent to the claim of the candidate for caste status, and
passes appropriate orders. The Scrutiny Committee is not an
Adjudicating Authority like a Court or Tribunal, but an
administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into
a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the
caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. Like any other
decisions of Administrative Authorities, the orders of the
Scrutiny Committe are also open to challenge in proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
6.Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in G.Venkitasamy and Another Vs. The Chairman
State Level Scrutiny Committee reported in 2016 (1) MLJ 606 wherein, it
has observed as follows:-
“29. From the aforestated analysis, it is manifest
that the authorities are required to investigate, identify and
conduct the enquiry in the following manner:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
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 collect relevant facts in an open and
transparent manner from all the relevant places such as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
school, locality etc. and persons such as parents and 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.23397 of 2019
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.”
7.In view of the above categorical pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that
the State Level Scrutiny Committee has over stepped and has undertaken the
role of an investigating agency to conclude that the petitioners do not belong
to the Scheduled Tribe by relying upon reports which were subject matter of
the earlier decision of this Court, which went in favour of the petitioners.
8.We are therefore, constrained to interfere and set aside the order
of the State Level Scrutiny Committee. We have already adverted to the fact
that both the District Level Vigilence Committee and the Anthropologist
have affirmed the community of the petitioners as “Kurumans”. Hence, this
Writ Petition is allowed, the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee will
stand set aside. There will be a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri namely, the 3rd respondent to issue communtiy certificate to the
petitioners to the effect that they belong to “Kurumans”, a Schedueld Tribe.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
The certificate shall be issued within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
9.We are informed that the 2nd petitioner has been provisionally
selected for the post of Village Administrative Officer (VAO) but the
appointment orders have not been issued because of the pendency of this
Writ petition. We make it clear that upon production of the community
certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner shall be
offered the post of Village Administrative Officer.
10.This Writ Petition is allowed with the above observations. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
19.10.2022
kkn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
To:-
1.The Tamil Nadu State Level
Scrutiny Committee – II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009,
2.The Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
KKN
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.23161, 23162
& 23166 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23397 of 2019
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
