Madras High Court
K.Balakrishnan vs The Tamil Nadu State on 3 October, 2023
2023/MHC/4512
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.8260 of 2023
K.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Tamil Nadu State
Level Scrutiny Committee-II
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Namakkal Kavingar Maligai
Secretariat, Chennai
2.The Deputy General Manager
UCO Bank
Zonal Office
328, Thambuchetty Street
Chennai-01
3.A.S.Mohan Ram
Deputy Conservator of Forest /
Member Secretary
State Level Scrutiny Committee-2
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Namakkal Kavingar Maligai
Secretariat, Chennai
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
4.The District Collector
Tirunelveli District
Tirunelveli ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order made
by the first respondent in proceedings No.1852/CV-2/2015-22, dated
02.08.2022 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate for R1 & R4
Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan for R2
No appearance for R3
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The proceedings of the Tamil Nadu State level Scrutiny
Committee, dated 02.08.2022, are sought to be quashed in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that he is a native of Parameshwarapuram
Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. He belongs to “Kondareddy
Community”, which is notified / identified by the Presidential Order issued
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
under Article 342 of the Constitution of India to be a Scheduled Tribe
community as regards the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was issued
with a community certificate on 08.07.1977, by the Deputy Tahsildar,
Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Based on the said community
certificate, on 01.07.1982, the petitioner secured appointment as Clerk-cum-
Assistant Cashier in the second respondent – Bank. His service was
confirmed on 01.01.1983. Since the appointment of the petitioner was made
under the Scheduled Tribe quota, the second respondent – Bank insisted the
petitioner to produce a fresh community certificate issued by the Tahsildar.
Accordingly, the petitioner approached the authority concerned for community
certificate. The promotional opportunities were denied to the petitioner, when
he was in service and he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2018.
He was allowed to retire from service, but the retirement benefits due to him
were withheld on account of verification of the community certificate.
3. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Tamil Nadu State
Level Scrutiny Committee for examination, since the petitioner produced
Scheduled Tribe community certificate. The State Level Scrutiny Committee
conducted an elaborate enquiry by scrutinizing the documents produced by
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
the petitioner and recording his statement. The findings of the State Level
Scrutiny Committee reveals as follows:
“19.The State Level Scrutiny Committee II
carefully and independently examined the report of the
Vigilance Cell along with records, statements, reply for
show cause notice furnished by the individual and
conclude that Thiru.K.Balakrishnan, S/o.Thiru.Kalyani
Reddy does not belong to the “Hindu Kondareddis”
Scheduled Tribe community. Accordingly, the State
Level Scrutiny Committee-II confirms that the “Hindu
Kondareddis” Community Certificate issued by the
Deputy Tahsildar, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli, Community
Certificate on 08.07.1977 (C.No.821/77) and Hindu
Kondareddis form of Caste Certificate from the
Additional Tahsildar, Veerakeralampudur on
09.03.1982 issued to Thiru.K.Balakrishnan,
S/o.Thiru.Kalyani Reddy is Not Correct.
20.The State level Scrutiny Committee II hereby
instructs the employer, UCO Bank to take stringent
action against Thiru.K.Balakrishnan, S/o.Thiru.Kalyani
Reddy as per law, for obtaining bogus community
certificate by defrauding the Constitution of India and
directs the District Collector, Tirunelveli to confiscate the
said community certificate and send the report to
Government.”
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
constitution of the State Level Scrutiny Committee itself was improper in the
case of the petitioner and more so, enquiry was not conducted in consonance
with the procedures established. It is further contended that the Member,
who conducted the enquiry proceedings, had not passed the final order and
therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the second respondent – Bank raised an
objection by stating that the genuinity of the community certificate produced
by the petitioner was doubted initially and therefore, the employer directed the
petitioner to secure a fresh community certificate from the competent
authority. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner was referred to the State
Level Scrutiny Committee for enquiry and it was found that the community
certificate produced by the petitioner was bogus. Thus, the action of the
employer is in consonance with the principles and there is no infirmity and
the writ petition is to be dismissed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1
& 4, on instructions, submitted that the State Level Scrutiny Committee
constituted under G.O.(Ms) No.40, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department, dated 13.07.2018, conducted an enquiry by affording due
opportunity to the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the constitution of the
Committee and more so, the members of the Committee are being transferred
and new members are taking charge of the Committee and dealing with the
files and passing orders and this being an administrative procedure, there is
no infirmity as such in the impugned order passed by the first respondent.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials
available on record.
8. The State Level Scrutiny Committee consists of the Chairman,
who was the Additional Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department; Member Secretary, who was the Deputy Conservative of
Forests, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and Anthropologist, who
was the Director (in charge), Tribal Research Centre, Ooty. All the members of
the Committee are competent enough to consider the issues, since the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
Chairman and the Member Secretary are from Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department and the Anthropologist is from the Tribal Research Centre, Ooty.
Therefore, the constitution of the State Level Scrutiny Committee cannot be
said to be improper with reference to the Judgment of the Honourable Apes
Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Department, Thane, reported in 1994 SCC (6) 241.
9. As far as the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner are concerned, administrative files are periodically dealt with by
the competent authority, who are all holding the position and it is not person
oriented. The authority, who is holding the post, is competent to conduct
enquiry and the incumbent official has to proceed further by following the
files. When this being the administrative procedure, it may not be possible for
one official to commence enquiry, complete the same and pass orders and
such procedure is alien to administrative law. The official competent is
expected to scrutinize the files and proceed from the place his predecessor left
and complete the same in all respects by following the procedures and
considering the merits of the case. That being the factum, the grounds raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner are untenable and contrary to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
administrative law. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any acceptable
ground for the purpose of interfereing with the impugned order passed by the
first respondent, which is otherwise is based on the documents and merits
raised between the parties.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.L.N., J.]
03.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Tamil Nadu State Level
Scrutiny Committee-II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavingar Maligai,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.9142 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.8260 of 2023
03.10.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
