Madras High Court
A. Periyasamy vs The Chairman on 25 April, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M. Subramaniam
WP No.33268 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 02-04-2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
And
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P. No.33268 of 2023
and W.M.P. Nos.33007 and 33009 of 2023
A. Periyasamy ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Chairman,
Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee -II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavingar Maligai,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS "T" Division,
Trichy-1. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ
or direction in the nature of writ or order by calling for the records of the
first respondent in its Proceedings No.3651/CV-3(1)/2018, Dated
06.11.2023 and quash the same.
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
WP No.33268 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Vijayashankar
For Respondent 1 : Mr. P. Kumaresan, AAG,
Assisted by Mr. Vadivelu Deenadayalan, AGP
For Respondent 2 : Mr. V. Balasubramanian, SPC
******
ORDER
[Order made by K. RAJASEKAR, J.]
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee -II in Proceedings No.3651/CV-
3(1)/2018, Dated 06.11.2023, holding that the community certificate issued
to the writ petitioner is not genuine and the same is liable to be confiscated.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that, he is the son of one
Arumugam, residing at Nandini Nagar, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District,
and belongs to Hindu Kattunaicken Community [Scheduled Tribe]. His
community certificate was issued on 29.05.1984 by the competent authority.
His father and ancestors were residents of Chinthamani Ground, Poosari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
Theru, Trichy. He studied at the National College Higher Secondary
School, Trichy and all his relatives were also issued with the community
certificate under the category Hindu Kattunaicken Community [Scheduled
Tribe]. He was appointed as a Mail Man under the second respondent's
Department in the year 1985. Subsequently, based on the letter received
from the Revenue Divisional Officer, he was terminated from the service, on
the ground that, his community certificate is not genuine. However, his
termination was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal and later
confirmed by this Court. Thereafter, the first respondent - Tamilnadu State
Level Scrutiny Committee -II had referred the matter for enquiry by the
Vigilance Cell and initiated proceedings for verifying the genuinity of the
community certificate of the petitioner in the year 2017-2018 and
consequently, passed the impugned order.
3. The petitioner further submitted that his family members
including his four sisters and brother possess community certificate issued
by the Tahsildar/ RDO as Hindu Kattunaicken Community [Scheduled
Tribe] and all their children have also been issued with the very same
community certificate. Both the petitioner's father and mother were Class
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
IV employees in the Tiruchirappalli Municipality/ Corporation have also
been declared that they belong to the Kattunaicken community in their
service records. Further, one of the petitioner's sister's son namely
Karthikeyan and his cousin brother's son namely Arunkumar also been
subjected to enquiry and the first respondent/ State Level Scrutiny
Committee -II confirmed that they belong to the Kattunaicken community.
However, despite such abundant and overwhelming documentary evidences,
the Vigilance Cell gave a report that the petitioner does not belong to the
Kattunaciken community. Subsequently, the first respondent has held that
the community certificate issued to the petitioner is not genuine and passed
the impugned proceedings dated 06.011.2023 that the petitioner does not
belong to the Hindu Kattunaicken community. Aggrieved over the same,
the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.
The submissions on behalf of the petitioner:
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the first respondent/ State Level Scrutiny Committee -II has already held that
the family members of the petitioner belongs to the Hindu Kattunaicken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
Community [Scheduled Tribe], and since the first respondent has held that
the community certificate of the petitioner's relatives are genuine, then the
first respondent should have held that the petitioner belongs to Hindu
Kattanaicken Community. He also submitted that the petitioner was not
given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, who have given
statements containing adverse impact on the petitioner's community, which
is a clear violation. Similarly, the copy of the report of the Anthropologist
was not produced to the petitioner. Therefore, there is a violation of natural
justice, hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the first respondent.
The submissions on behalf of the first respondent:
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the
State Level Scrutiny Committee -II has recorded the depositions of various
individuals including the parents of the petitioner herein, examined the
school records of the petitioner and his parents, thereafter rendered its
finding that the community certificate of the petitioner is not genuine. He
further submitted that the petitioner was also issued show cause notice dated
28.09.2019 and he had not given any supportive records or documentary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
evidence to prove his case and after providing sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner and considering all the evidence placed on record, the first
respondent has held that the community certificate obtained by the petitioner
in the year 1984 is not genuine and the subsequent certificate issued on
07.08.2007 by the Revenue Divisional Officer is not valid. Therefore, there
is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent and prays to
confirm the same.
Discussions and Conclusion:
6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and
also perused the records.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar and Others vs. Sumit
Anand [(2005) 12 SCC 248], wherein it isheld that if the family member of
the individual have been granted the certificate, certifying that they belong
to a particular community, then the individual is entitled to get the same
benefit. He also referred the Division Bench judgment of this Court in V.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
Krishnan and another, Chennai vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Issuing
Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai and
Others [(2008) 4 MLJ 524], wherein it has been held that the certificate
issued prior to 11.11.1989 by the Tahsildar to the Scheduled Tribe
candidates is good and valid certificate, so long as such the certificate is not
cancelled and it is further held that based on the above certificates, the
candidates daughter is also eligible for getting the very same certificate.
8. We are of the view that the above judgments referred by the
petitioner is not applicable to the present case in hand. In this case, the first
respondent/ State Level Scrutiny Committee -II has analysed the case of the
petitioner, more particularly, the school certificate of the petitioner's father
namely P. Arumugam S/o Ponnan, who studied at R.C. Middle School,
Tiruchirappalli during the academic year 1951-1957, wherein the
community of the individual has been mentioned as Hindu "Oddan"
(Scheduled Caste). Similarly, while the petitioner was studying in Class I -
V standard, the National College Higher Secondary School, Trichy, the
petitioner's community was recorded as Hindu - Jogi and while he was
admitted to VI standard, the petitioner's community was recorded as Hindu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
Kattunaicken based on the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar.
This certificate issued by the Tahsildar is found to be bogus certificate based
on the enquiry report submitted by the District Collector, Madurai.
Similarly, the first respondent has been served with the letter dated
03.08.1990, addressing to the second respondent herein/ the Senior
Superintendent, RMS "T" Division, Trichy, stating that the community
certificate produced by the petitioner for securing the employment is not
genuine, on the ground that the Tahsildar of Madurai North Taluk, namely
S.Baradhan, who is said to have issued the said community certificate dated
29.05.1984 to the petitioner was working as Tahsildar in Usilampati Taluk
and not at Madurai North Taluk at that time, as stated in the community
certificate produced by the petitioner.
9. The impugned order also reveals that, the depositions were
recorded from the Headmaster of E.R. Higher Secondary School,
Tiruchiappalli-2 with regard to the petitioner's brother namely A.Saravanan
and it has been stated by the Headmaster that the community of the said
Saravanan has been recorded as "Thotti". Similarly, the report of the
Headmistress, R.C. Middle School, Trichy, where the petitioner's sister
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
namely Puspavalli studied, shows that the community of the said Puspavalli
has been recorded as "Hindu Jogi". Apart from that, the depositions of the
residents from Padhuvai Nagar, Trichy District was also recorded, which
shows that the people living in the area of Chinthamani Ground, Poosari
Theru of Trichy District belongs to "Jogi", "Oddar" and "Thotti" community
and some of them obtained their community certificate as "Kattunaicken
Community".
10. The first respondent has also given a finding that the parents of
the petitioner were having school certificate records, in which they have
mentioned their community as "Oddar". Similarly, the community of
majority of the petitioner's family members recorded in their school records
show that they belong to "Jogi", "Oddar", "Thotti" and "Harijan"
community.
11. Admittedly, in the year 1990 itself, the petitioner's community
certificate alleged to be issued by the Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk was
found to be fake and bogus, though, it was held by the Court that his
community certificate has to be properly cancelled by the competent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
authority, but no final decision was taken for cancellation of the said
certificate till the year 2000. Subsequently, the individual/ petitioner has
obtained another community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer
based on the community certificate issued in the year 1984. The first
respondent has verified both the certificates and based on the evidence
recorded, given the finding that the community certificate of the petitioner is
not genuine.
12. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not given
sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and his side evidence
was not property appreciated by the first respondent. The evidence placed
on record and the order impugned herein shows that the petitioner was
served notice and summoned for enquiry on 03.11.2023 with all the
supportive documents to substantiate his case. However during the enquiry,
the petitioner could not able to establish his cultural traits before the first
respondent and more particularly, he has not made any request to contradict
the report of the Anthropologist or with regard to the letter dated 03.08.1990
from the District Collector, Madurai. Further, he could not clarify the
community of his family members, which has been recorded as "Jogi",
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
"Oddar", "Thotti" and "Harijan" in their school records and also failed to
explain about the said community status mentioned in the documents
submitted by him. The other contention of the petitioner is that the first
respondent in its other proceedings has held that the petitioner's aunt's
grandson namely D. Arunkumar S/o Devarajan belongs to Hindu
Kattunaicken Community". The community of the said Arunkumar is
concerned, the first respondent has held that his community certificate is
based on his father and the same could not be considered for the petitioner's
case, since the said Arunkumar's father is not having direct blood
relationship to the petitioner. All these facts shows that the petitioner had
availed sufficient opportunities before the first respondent, however, he
could not able to prove his case.
13. The first respondent/ State Level Scrutiny Committee -II
considering all the above fact has held that the community of the petitioner's
family members, including his parents and sister recorded in their school
records have not supported the case of the petitioner that he hails from the
Hindu Kattunaicken Community. Further, the letter dated 03.08.1990 from
the District Collector, Madurai also clinchingly shows that the community
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
certificate produced by the petitioner is fake, though it has not been
cancelled in the subsequent proceedings, the first respondent has considered
all the evidences produced on the side of the petitioner as well as recorded
various statement of the stake holders, including the people belonging to the
petitioner's locality, family members, relatives, school records and the report
of the Officers from the Vigilance Cell and held that the community
certificate produced by the petitioner is fake vide its proceedings dated
06.11.2023.
14. The Power of Judicial Review of this Court invoking Article
226 of Constitution of India in the nature of writ of certiorari is a
supervisory jurisdiction and this Court cannot act as an appellate Court as
held by Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan and Others
[1964 SCR (5) 64]. The impugned order also shows that the order was
passed based on the evidence placed on record and it has not been passed
based on no evidence. The first respondent also given cogent reasons in its
decision by scrutinizing the certificates of the relatives of the petitioner,
which are found to be genuine, however the school records of the petitioner
as well as his parents stands against the claim of the petitioner and there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
no proper explanation given by the petitioner in this regard, hence this Court
finds no perversity in the finding of the first respondent, warranting
interference of this Court in the impugned order.
15. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions stand closed. There
shall be no order as to cost.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.) (K.RAJASEKAR,J.)
25-04-2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
stn
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee -II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavingar Maligai,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS "T" Division,
Trichy-1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
stn
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
25-04-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 05:53:43 pm )
