Madras High Court
P.Janakiraman vs The Chairman on 29 November, 2023
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.P.No.33538 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No. 33538 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.33355 and 33357 of 2023
P.Janakiraman ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chairman,
State Level Scrutiny Committee-III,
Additional Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Chairman,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records leading to
impugned proceedings No.16495/CV-6/2013-26, dated 15.11.2023 on
the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. N.Naganathan
For Respondents : Mrs.R.L.Karthika for R1
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/13
W.P.No.33538 of 2023
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.Nisha Banu,J)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
15.11.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, by which, the "Hindu
Kurumans" Scheduled Tribe community certificate issued to the
petitioner was cancelled.
2.By consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up
for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. (i) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to
Hindu Kurumans Schedule Tribe Community. He was issued with
permanent ST community certificate by the Tahsildar, Pursaiwakkam-
Perambur Taluk, vide certificate No.147966 dated 07.10.1988.
He was also issued with another community certificate in the prescribed
format by the Additional District Magistrate and Personal (G) to the
Collector Chennai vide R.Dis.No.26491/1997 dated 15.05.1997. He was
appointed as Clerk in General Pool Scheme of MDLB (Madras Dock
Labour Board) in the 2nd respondent office on 04.08.1999, by order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
31.07.1999 under the quota reserved for Schedule Tribes and his service
was confirmed with effect from 04.08.1999. Later on, he was promoted
to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 2000, then Senior Assistant in
2006. Thereafter, he was not given any further promotion due to the
pendency of verification of his social status. He is presently working as
the Senior Assistant in the 2nd respondent organisation/Chennai Port
Trust.
(ii) The 2nd respondent had referred his community certificate for
verification to the District Level Vigilance Committee/District Collector,
Tiruvallur in the year 2005, who in turn, referred to the Sub Collector,
Ponneri, for his report. The Sub Collector, Ponneri, without giving any
notice to the petitioner had conducted a discrete enquiry and forwarded
his report to the District Collector, Thiruvallur, wherein, it is stated that
the petitioner belongs to Kurumba and not “Kurumans” community.
Based on the same, the District Level Vigilance Committee has given its
conclusion that ST community certificate issued to him is not genuine by
its report dated 18.08.2005. Since the committee has no authority to
pass order, it referred to the 1st respondent/State Level Scrutiny
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Committee for further deliberation and passing final orders, by his letter
dated 17.09.2008 as per G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 12.09.2007.
(iii) Since the petitioner's social status is pending before the
1st respondent, the 2nd respondent denied his further promotion.
The alleged enquiry report of the District Level Vigilance Committee
dated 18.08.2005 was not served to him till date with supportive
documents. The Director of Tribal Welfare Department had requested
the DSP, Social Justice and Human Rights Wing, Thiruvallur, for his
enquiry report, in pursuant to that, an enquiry was conducted by the
Vigilance Cell, which submitted a report by its proceedings dated April
2022 to the effect that the claim of the individual that he belongs to
Hindu “Kurumans” is genuine. However, the Anthropologist concluded
in her report that the petitioner's claim is not genuine. Purusuant to
which, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order vide proceedings
No.16495/CV-6/2013-26, dated 15.11.2023 concluding that the
petitioner's claim is not genuine as no documentary evidence was
furnished in respect of the ST community status of his father or mother to
consider his claim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iv) Since the petitioner was denied promotion, he filed a writ
petition in W.P.No.30394 of 2018 before this Court seeking promotion
and this Court had directed the 1st respondent committee to complete the
enquiry and file its report. The 1st respondent had passed the impugned
order in a hurried manner when the said Writ Petition is pending as on
date. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is against the principles of
natural justice and clear violation of the order of this Hon'ble Court and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The 1st respondent rejected his claim only on
the reason that Anthropologist has given an adverse report against his
social status. Learned counsel further submitted that when the 1st
respondent differs from the report of the Vigilance Cell and follows the
Anthropologist report, it ought to have issued show cause notice with
reports and documents before proceeding further but the 1st respondent
failed to do so.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) Learned counsel would further submit that once the Vigilance
Cell concludes that the petitioner's claim is genuine, the 1st respondent
ought to have accepted it and it has no power to proceed with further
enquiry unless the report or particulars given are found to be false.
The Anthropologist is only a supportive document and it cannot be
treated as a conclusive document. Further, once the Vigilance Cell
concluded that the claim of the petitioner is genuine, the State Level
Scrutiny Committee cannot interfere with the same.
(iii) Learned counsel would further submit that in view of the
impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent is
initiating action against the petitioner to terminate the petitioner from
service of the 2nd respondent organization. He would further submit that
the petitioner is serving in the 2nd respondent organisation for a period of
more than 24 years and till date, he is working under the 2nd respondent.
At this stage, no purpose will be served in verifying the community status
of the petitioner. The petitioner is now 51 years old and at this stage,
verification of his community status is uncalled for.
(iv) In support of his submission, learned counsel drew the
attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.Kalyani vs. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-II,
Chennai and other in W.P.No.25598 of 2021, wherein, it has been held
that the report of the Anthropologist could only be treated as another
piece of material in deciding the entire issue and further reiterated that
once the Vigilance Cell concludes that the claim is genuine, the State
Level Scrutiny Committee cannot interfere with the said conclusion,
which was not taken into consideration by the 1st respondent while
passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated
15.11.2023 passed by the 1st respondent cancelling the community
certificate of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, he would pray
that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent has to be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
1st respondent would submit that based on the request made by the
Secretary, Chennai Port Trust, to cause verification of genuiness of the
Hindu Kurumans Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate issued by
Tahsildar, Purasaiwalkam - Perambur Taluk submitted by the petitioner,
an enquiry was conducted. Since the reports submitted by two competent
authorities viz., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice & Human
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rights Wing, District Vigilance Cell, Thiruvallur and anothropologist
concerned are contraditory in nature, the State Level Scrutiny Committee
decided to finalize the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe community
certificate of the petitioner after conducting personal enquiry. Only after
carefully and thoroughly scrutinising the documents submitted by the
petitioner and the reports submitted by the officials, the State Level
Scrutiny Committee found that the Hindu Kurumans Scheduled Tribunal
Community Certificates are not genuine. Therefore, the State Level
Scrutiny Committee directed the District Collector to confiscate the
'Hindu Kurumans' Sceduled Tribe Community Certificate as well as the
'Hindu Kurumans' Form of Caste Certificate submitted by the petitioner
and further, recommended to take appropriate action against the
petitioner as per law. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that
the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee/1st respondent
requires no interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the writ
petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is working in
the 2nd respondent organisation for a period of more than 24 years.
The Government of India have issued guidelines periodically mandating
all employers and authorities to undertake verification at the earliest point
of time preferably at the time of one's entry into service.
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. In the case on hand,
there is a clear evidence to point out that the the petitioner has been
favoured with the Certificates by the Tahsildar, Puraisaiwakkam in 1988
itself.
9. It would be apt and appropriate to refer to the judgment of
this Court made in W.P.No.2828 of 2022 dated 25.11.2022 in this
regard, wherein it has been 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, State Level
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. We are unable to find any valid reason for the
State Leavel Scrutiny Committee to reach such conclusion, in the order
impugned in the present Writ Petition to the effect that the report of the
District Level Vigilance Committee, Chennai, 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 the State Level Scrutiny
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 impugned order dated 15.11.2023 passed by the 1st respondent/Tamil
Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, accordingly, the same is set aside.
We conclude that the community certificate issued to the petitioner is
genuine. The Writ Petition is allowed. If the petitioner is terminated from
service based on the impugned order, the employer/second respondent is
directed to reinstate him with all service and monetary benefits forthwith.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(J.N.B,J.) (N.M., J.)
29.11.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet :Yes/No
Speaking Order: Non-speaking order
msv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Chairman,
State Level Scrutiny Committee-III,
Additional Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Chairman,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
N.MALA,J.
msv
and W.M.P.Nos.33355
and 33357 of 2023
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
