Madras High Court
R.Palanichamy vs The Director on 20 March, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022
and
WMP(MD)No.15584 of 2022
R.Palanichamy ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Director,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
2. The State Level Scrutiny Committee-II,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
3. The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palani,
Dindigul District.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Records Bureau – In-charge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
Page No.1 of 12
W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022
Social Justice and Human Rights,
SC/ST Vigilance Cell,
Dindigul. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records in pursuant to the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2022 in
No.17542/CV-3(1)/2018-4, quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanakumar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For R5 : Mr.A.Albert James
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
Challenging the proceedings dated 27.06.2022 passed by the
2nd respondent, holding that the petitioner does not belong to
Kattunayakan community and therefore, the community certificate
issued to him as Kattunayakan is not correct, the petitioner has filed this
writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as
follows:
The petitioner was issued with a community certificate by the 4th
respondent on 10.11.2011, certifying that he belongs to Kattunayakan
community, which is a scheduled tribe community. According to the
petitioner, the said certificate was issued based on a detailed enquiry
conducted by a Senior Anthropologist, by confirming that the people
residing in the petitioner's village namely, Pilathu Village,
Vaalichettipatti, belong to Kattunayakan community. The petitioner, his
daughter and his blood relatives were also issued with kattunayakan
community certificates. On the strength of the said community
certificate, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Police
Department through the selection by the TNPSC under ST community
quota. While the petitioner was working at Dindigul, the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range, requested the 1st
respondent to ascertain the genuineness of the petitioner's community.
Pursuant thereto, the 5th respondent conducted an enquiry and
submitted his report dated 09.03.2020 to the 2nd respondent stating that
the petitioner belongs to Kattunayakan community. However, the State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
Level Scrutiny Committee / 2nd respondent called the petitioner to
attend the enquiry. Though the petitioner appeared before the 2nd
respondent and produced documents in support of his community
claim, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 27.06.2022, stating that
the petitioner's school records reflect Thottiyanaicker community which
is a most backward community and therefore, the petitioner does not
belong to Kattunayakan community. Hence, the petitioner has filed this
writ petition.
3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the
petitioner would contend that despite the positive reports of the 5th
respondent / Vigilance Cell and the Anthropologist, the 2nd respondent
has adopted pick and choose method by relying upon only one
document namely, school records which does not have evidentiary
value. The report of the 5th respondent/Vigilance Cell was not served
on the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order suffers from
violation of principles of natural justice. He would further contend that
earlier kattunayakan community people were wrongly issued with
Thottiyanayakkar community certificates and later it was clarified and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
after surrendering the Thottiyanayakkar community certificates, the
authorities issued the kattunayakkan community certificate, which vital
fact was not taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent. He would
also contend that earlier, when the villagers of Pilathu village claimed
ST community certificate, the Tahsildar, Vedasadur, conducted an
enquiry in 2007 and found that they can be issued with kattunayakan
community certificates after obtaining the report of the Anthropologist.
Thereafter, the Anthropologist also conducted a detailed enquiry in the
year 2009 and concluded that 65 families of Pilathu Village are eligible to
get kattunayakan community certificate and the District Level Vigilance
Committee also passed an order in the year 2011, directing the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palani, to issue kattunayakan community certificates
to the villagers of Pilathu village. Though the 2nd respondent narrated
the earlier proceedings in their order, it has not considered the case of
the petitioner in proper perspective and rejected it on filmsy ground.
4. It is also submitted that when the 5th respondent/Vigilance
Cell after considering the earlier proceedings and the report of the
Anthropologist, issued a favourable report in the case of the petitioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
without even assigning any reason as to why it disregarded the report of
the vigilance cell, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order. In
this context, the counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the order
passed by a Division Bench in the case of E.Karthikeyan vs. Chairman,
Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-II, Chennai and others
[W.P.Nos.2828 and 5237 of 2022, dated 25.11.2022]. Thus, the learned
counsel would pray for setting aside the impugned order.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents 1 to 4 would state that during the enquiry, the
petitioner was not able to produce any documents prior to the year 2000
with probative value or the scheduled tribe community certificates,
school records, land documents etc., of any of his parents, grandparents
and other blood relatives on paternal/maternal side. On verification of
the documents produced by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent concluded
that he does not belong to kattunayakan community and therefore, the
impugned order does not require interference by this Court.
6. Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the 2nd
respondent, finding that the petitioner was not able to produce any
documents prior to the year 2000 with probative value or the scheduled
tribe community certificates, school records, land documents etc., of any
of his parents, grandparents and other blood relatives on
paternal/maternal side and the petitioner's school records produced by
him reflect Thottiyanaicker community which is a most backward
community, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 27.06.2022,
holding that the petitioner does not belong to Kattunayakan community.
8. Perusal of the impugned order also shows that even before
the issuance of community certificate to the petitioner in the year 2011
certifying him as belong to kattunayakan community, based on the
request made by 65 families living in Pilathu Village, Vaalichettipatti, to
issue kattunayakan community certificate, the Tahsildar, Vedasandur,
conducted enquiry and sent a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palani, stating that his enquiry revealed the claim of 60 families at
Pilathu village as genuine and they can be issued with kattunayakan
community certificate after obtaining the report of the Anthropologist.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
Pursuant thereto, report of the Anthropologist was called for. The
Anthropologist Dr.Sumathi, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Anthropology, University of Madras, had conducted enquiry and in her
report dated 09.11.2009, she concluded that 65 families of Pilathu Village
are eligible to get kattunayakan community certificate. Thereafter, the
District Level Vigilance Committee / District Collector, Dindigul, by
proceedings dated 08.11.2011, considering the reports of the Tahsildar,
Vedasandur, and the Anthropologist directed the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Palani, to issue kattunayakan community certificates to 65
families living in Pilathu Village, Vaalichettipatti. Based on the said
proceedings, the petitioner who is hailing from Pilathu village, has been
issued with a community certificate dated 10.11.2011 certifying him as
belong to kattunayakkan community. On the strength of the said
certificate, the petitioner joined the Police Department.
9. When the genuineness of the said community certificate of
the petitioner was doubted, again the 5th respondent/Vigilance Cell,
based on the deposition of the witnesses and documents collected,
reports of the Anthropologist and Sub Collector, Palani, concluded that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
the petitioner belongs to Hindu Kattunayakkan Scheduled Tribe
community. However, without even assigning any reason as to why it
disregarded the report of the Vigilance Cell, the 2nd respondent/State
Level Scrutiny Committee by impugned order held that the petitioner's
community certificate dated 10.11.2011 is not correct. As rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said approach of
the 2nd respondent is arbitrary in view of the judgment of this Court in
E.Karthikeyan's case (supra), wherein, the Division Bench has held as
under:
''27.The other reason assigned is that the petitioner's father had been
called upon for an enquiry on 20.09.2021 and that the State Level Scrutiny
Committee had held that in respect of the claim of the petitioner's father, it had
held in negative by its order dated 20.10.2021 (which is the subject matter of
challenge in W.P.No.5237 of 2022). There has been no reason assigned by the
first respondent Committee as to why it has disregarded the report of the District
Level Vigilance Cell. It would be useful to point out that the Hon'ble Apex Court
as well as this Court had held that when the District Level Vigilance Cell had
submitted a favourable Report, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall not
proceed further but to pass orders. In the present case, in spite of the District
Level Vigilance Committee having given a favourable Report, the first
respondent State Level Scrutiny Committee had proceeded further that too
without assigning any reason whatsoever as to why it has disregarded the Report
of the Vigilance Cell. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered
view that the order impugned in W.P.No.2828 of 2022 is liable to be set aside.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
10. In the impugned order, though the 2nd respondent narrated
the earlier proceedings regarding the claim of villagers in Pilathu village
and the consequential decision taken thereon, it has not even adverted
to the same while considering the case of the petitioner who also hails
from Pilathu village. Thus, there is a non application of mind on the
part of the 2nd respondent.
11. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings
dated 27.06.2022 in No.17542/CV-3(1)/2018-4, are liable to be set aside
and accordingly set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed.
No costs.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
20.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The Director,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
2. The State Level Scrutiny Committee-II,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
3. The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palani,
Dindigul District.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Records Bureau – In-charge,
Social Justice and Human Rights,
SC/ST Vigilance Cell,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 20.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2025 11:50:02 am )
