Madras High Court
The Director Of Medical Education vs R.Anchana on 27 November, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD)No.1529 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD)No.1529 of 2022 & W.P.(MD)No.17827 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.12860 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13014, 13016 & 21551 of 2022
W.A.(MD)No.1529 of 2022
1.The Director of Medical Education,
Directorate of Medical Education,
156, Poonamallee High Road,
New Bupathy Nagar, Chetpet, Chennai.
2.The Dean,
Kanyakumari Medical College,
Asaripallam, Kanyakumari District. ... Appellants
Vs.
R.Anchana ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside
the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.19475 of 2022, dated 01.09.2022 on the file of
this Court.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1529 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by Mr.T.Amjadkhan,
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel
W.P.(MD)No.17827 of 2022
R.Anchana ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The State Level Scrutiny Committee II,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Dean,
Kanyakumari Medical College,
Asaripallam, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in proceedings No.14611/CV-2/2020-9, dated 04.07.2022 on the
file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, for a
direction directing the 2nd respondent to grant genuineness certificate to the
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1529 of 2022
petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Prabhavathi.S. Vs. The
Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppathur reported in 1993 2 LW 143 and W.P.
(MD)Nos.11763 and 11918 of 2010, dated 30.01.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by Mr.T.Amjadkhan,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)
This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 04.07.2022 of the State
Level Scrutiny Committee, rejecting the request of the petitioner to grant
Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate.
2.The petitioner claims that she belongs to “Hindu Kaniyan”
Community. It is her case that her mother was the employee of BSNL, which is
Central Public Sector Undertaking, as Deputy General Manager and had been
benefitted with certificate that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Hindu Kaniyan)
Community. The petitioner states that her certificates were sent for verification
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and on the basis of the certificate, which was under verification, she joined MBBS
course. She had been successful in clearing the course for the academic year
2020-2021. In and about October, 2020, she was informed that her certificate is
the subject matter of scrutiny before State Level Scrutiny Committee and in
pursuance thereof, in November, 2020, she sent a representation to the State Level
Scrutiny Committee, requesting her verification be done at the earliest, so as to
enable her to pursue further studies. By the impugned order dated 04.07.2022, the
State Level Scrutiny Committee rejected her claim and stated that she does not
belong to Hindu Kaniyan Community. Aggrieved by the said order, the present
Writ Petition is filed.
3.Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General-6 appearing
for the respondents.
4.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy would submit that the State Level Scrutiny
Committee ought not to have relied upon “affinity test” for the purpose of coming
to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Kaniyan
Community. More importantly, he would submit that as the maternal and paternal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
side of the petitioner are the members belonging to Hindu Kaniyan Community
and they have been benefitted with Hindu Kaniyan Community Certificate, the
petitioner's claim ought not to have been rejected.
5.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents brought to our notice that the statements of as many as 16 persons
were examined by Verification Cell of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and
they had deposed that the writ petitioner did not belong to Hindu Kaniyan
Community, but belongs to a higher caste. He would also state that the State
Level Scrutiny Committee has applied it minds to the facts of the case and come to
the categorical conclusion that the petitioner is not a Scheduled Tribe.
6.Having heard both sides and considered the papers before us.
7.At the outset, we have to refer to the very recent judgment of the
Supreme Court in Mah.Adiwasi Thakur Jamet Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2023 SCC Online 326. The verdict arose out
of a reference that had been made to three Judges of the Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.Speaking for the Bench, Mr.Justice.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL and
Mr.Justice.ABHAY S.OKA take a view in paragraph No.38, which reads as
follows:-
“38.Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
(a)Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an
enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant,
the case can be referred to Vigilance Cell. While referring the case to
Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny committee must record brief reasons for
coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material
produced by the applicant. Only after a case is referred to the
Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of
affinity test will arise.
(b)For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test
cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted
by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other
material on record having probative value will have to be taken into
consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste
validity claim; and
(c)In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste
claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination
of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.From this it is very clear that when the State Level Scrutiny
Committee, after holding enquiry, is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant,
only thereafter, it should refer the matter to the Vigilance Cell. The law having
been declared by the Supreme Court, the State Level Scrutiny Committee is bound
to follow this judgment.
10.Apart from that the learned Senior Counsel made a submission that
the certificates that had been issued to the cousins of the writ petitioner, namely,
Ms.Athirasai and Mr.Anup Chandran though were referred to by the petitioner in
her explanation before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, there is no discussion
on the same. When a close relative has been given a certificate (though by a
non-speaking order), it is the duty of the State Level Scrutiny Committee to have
taken that for consideration and passed an order. It ought to have been given a
finding why it is either agreeing or disagreeing by the previous order by the State
Level Scrutiny Committee, if so, furnish the reasons for the same. That being
absent, we are constrained to interfere with the order passed by the State Level
Scrutiny Committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.In the light of the view taken by us, we set aside the impugned order
dated 04.07.2022 on the ground of non-application of mind with respect to the
certificates produced by the writ petitioner and remit the matter to the 2nd
respondent for the purpose of reconsideration. It is open to the petitioner to
produce such certificates that are in her possession to substantiate her claim. The
State Level Scrutiny Committee shall refer to the orders previously passed by it
with respect to close relatives of the petitioner and its genunity thereof.
12.One further aspect remains to be discussed is the direction given by
the learned Single Judge, which is the subject matter of the Writ Appeal. By the
time, the State Level Scrutiny Committee had passed an order, the petitioner had
completed her MBBS course. The learned Single Judge had directed return of the
certificates. The petitioner, having completed her course, she will be entitled to
get her educational certificates. However, we make it clear that in case the State
Level Scrutiny Committee holds against her, she will not be entitled to the benefits
under Scheduled Tribe Community and she can only be treated as non-Scheduled
Tribe Community person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13.With the above directions, W.P.(MD)No.17827 of 2022 stands
allowed and W.A.(MD)No.1529 of 2022 stands disposed of. The State Level
Scrutiny Committee shall complete the said exercise within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.S., J.) & (V.L.N., J.)
27.11.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Member Secretary,
State Level Scrutiny Committee II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Dean,
Kanyakumari Medical College,
Asaripallam, Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Yuva
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
