Madras High Court

L. Ramalingam vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny ... on 6 December, 2023

Author: J.Nisha Banu

Bench: J.Nisha Banu

W.P.No. 13792 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.12.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

W.P.No. 13792 of 2022
and W.M.P.Nos. 13084 and 13086 of 2022

L. Ramalingam ..Petitioner
Vs.

1. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III
Rep. by its Chairman
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Namakkal Kavingar Maligai
Secretariat
Chennai-600009

2. The Deputy Zonal Manager
UCO Bank
Chennai-1 ..Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order
passed by the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III in proceedings
No.19829/CV-6/2014-10 dated 11.04.2022 on the file of the 1st respondent,

Page No:1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 13792 of 2022

quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to extend all the terminal
benefits to the petitioner.
(Prayer amended as per order dated 06.12.2023 in W.M.P.No.31108 of 2022
in W.P.No.13792 of 2022 by JNBJ & NMJ)

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Doraisamy
For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu for R1
Additional Government Pleader
Mr. Srinath Sridevan for R2

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by J.Nisha Banu,J.)

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the

1st respondent/Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III in proceedings

No.19829/CV-6/2024-10 dated 11.04.2022 and to direct the 2nd respondent to

extend all the terminal benefits to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Kurumans

Community, which is a Schedule Tribe Community and he obtained the said

community certificate from the Tahsildar, Purasawakkam-Perambur Taluk on

04.02.1976, after due enqiry and proper verification. Based on the said

Page No:2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

certificate, he got appointment in UCO Bank through employment exchange

as a Peon. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent insisted him to produce the fresh

community certificate. As per the said request, the petitioner had obtained

another community certificate from the P.A.(G) to the Collector, Chennai

(Competent Authority) on 29.09.1993 based on the community certificate

already issued to him by the Tahsildar, Purasawakkam-Perambur Taluk.

However, the 2nd respondent not satisfying with the above certificate,

requested the 1st respondent/ State Level Scrutiny Committee to verify the

genuineness of his community certificate dated 29.09.1993 without referring

the community certificate dated 04.02.1976 issued by the Tahsildar. While

so, he got retired from service on 31.07.2013. After his retirement from

service, the 1st respondent committee referred the matter to the Vigilance

Cell, Chennai as well as to the Anthropologist. During the Vigilance Enquiry

by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he submitted the following

documents:

(i). Petitioner's community certificate

(ii). Community certificate of his own brother's son C.Suresh S/o

Chinnathamman.

Page No:3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(iii). Community certificate and State Committee report of R.Panneer

Selvan who is his own brother Chinnathamman's brother in law's son.

(iv). Community certificate and State Committee report of his maternal

uncle son T.L.Vijayakumar.

(v) School T.C. Of his brother's son C.Suresh in which it is mentioned

as Kurumans(ST).

However, the Vigilance Cell without considering the aforesaid documents and

the genuineness of the petitioner's own brother Chinnathamman's

brother-in-law's son R.Panneerselvam's community certificate, concluded that

he belongs to Kurumbar @ Kurumba Gounder Community (MBC).

3. Pursuant to which, the State Level Scrutiny Committee/1st

respondent had cancelled the petitioner's community certificate based on the

said vigilance cell report by relying that there is no Scheduled Tribe people

are living in the Tripupathur Taluk and also the petitioner's school records,

that he belongs to “kurumbar”.

Page No:4/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this

Court to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.25963 of 2013 while holding

that there is no community such as Kurumbar, directed the Secretary to

Government to instruct the certificate issuing authorities and the concerned

authorities to refrain from issuing community certificate as Kurumbar and to

recall the certificates already issued as Kurumbar and to rectify the mistake.

Based on the above order, the Secretary to Government issued a circular in

Letter No. 901/CV1/2014-1 dated 18.03.2014 to all the competent authorities

to recall the certificates already issued as “Kurumbar”. However, the 1st

respondent committee had cancelled the petitioner's community certificate

dated 04.02.1976 without considering the State Level Committee's report of

the petitioner's blood relatives and also fails to consider that several people of

Tirupathur Taluk have obtained Kurumans (ST) Community Certificate and

many of the community certificates were verified by the 1st respondent

committee as genuine. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition.

Page No:5/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other

hand supported the impugned order stating that the petitioner and the family

members of the petitioner belong to Kurumbar MBC Community.

6. We have heard the learned counsels and we have perused the

materials on record.

7. In the instant case, it is seen that the 1st respondent committee

rejected the community certificate of the petitioner on the ground that the

petitioner and his family members belong to Hindu Kurumbar Most

Backward Class community. In this regard, the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25963 & 25964 of 2013 can be

usefully referred to. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid writ

petitions held as follows:

“8.We find much force in the plea made by the petitioners that the competent authority has relied upon the community “Kurumbar” for rejecting the application for Scheduled Tribe community certificate and we once again reiterate that the competent authority is not entitled to

Page No:6/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

refer to the name of “Kurumbar” (MBC) for the purpose of deciding the claim for issuance of Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate. Even assuming that there are certificates issued in favour of one or other persons bearing the name of “Kurumbar” with or without MBC tag, the authority shall independently verify the claim as to whether the petitioner falls under the Scheduled Tribe community on the basis of relevant materials that would

be submitted by the petitioner in the relevant case and also shall follow the procedures prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.106 dated 15.10.2012. The Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department is directed to inform all the competent authorities to cease and desist from referring to the name of the community as “Kurumbar” (allegedly said to be MBC) for the purpose of deciding any claim whatsoever.”

8. It is further to be noted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court in W.P.No.1807 of 2013, while setting aside the certificate that the

candidates belong to Kurumans Community directed the Revenue Divisional

Officer to issue the Community Certificate that the candidate belong to

Kurumans Scheduled Tribe Community. It is further relevant to note here that

Page No:7/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

in pursuance of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.Nos.25963 & 25964 of 2013, the Secretary to Government issued a

circular in letter No.901/CV1/2014-1 dated 18.03.2014 to all the competent

authorities to recall the certificates already issued as Kurumbar. The learned

counsel for the petitioner is therefore justified in his submission that there

is no community as Kurumbar community and hence, the cancellation of the

petitioner's community certificate by the 1st respondent stating that the

petitioner belongs to Kurumbar community is untenable and erroneous.

9. Inspite of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court, the respondent has rejected the petitioner's community certificate

on a flimsy and untenable grounds. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's

close relative was also issued with the Kurumans Scheduled Tribe

Community Certificate, which was verified by the State Level Scrutiny

Committee. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be

sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 is hereby

Page No:8/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to

extend all the terminal benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law.

The said exercise shall be done within a period of eight (8) weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(J.N.B.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 06.12.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No msv

1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department Namakkal Kavingar Maligai Secretariat Chennai-600009

2. The Deputy Zonal Manager UCO Bank Chennai-1

J.NISHA BANU,J.

And

Page No:9/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.Mala,J.

msv

and W.M.P.No. 13084 & 13086 of 2022

06.12.2023

Page No:10/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis