S SARAVANAKUMAR Vs. STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was issued with a community certificate by the Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Karaikudi dated 09.7.2002 certifying that he belongs to Hindu-Telugu Patti Chetty community which is notified as one of the Most Backward Community. On the strength of the said certificate he applied for admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. Degree Course and was selected and admitted in Coimbatore Medical College. On completion of the course, he is presently undergoing Compulsory Rotatory Resident Internship course. An enquiry was conducted as to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the petitioner and the said certificate was cancelled by the proceedings of the District Vigilance Committee on 25.4.2008. Based on the said order of cancellation he was dismissed from the College by the communication of the Dean of Coimbatore Medical College dated 11.8.2008. Later, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition on the ground that earlier order of this Court made in W.P.No.24872 of 2006 dated 10.8.2006 allowing the petitioner to complete the course was violated. In that Contempt Petition, the assurance made by the Government Pleader on behalf of the State assuring to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 20.06.2006 for inclusion of 24-Manai Telegu Chetty, Sathu Chetty, Telegu Chetty in the Most Backward Class Community on par with Telegu Patti Chetty within a time frame was noted. As that undertaking was not complied with, however, the Contempt Petition was disposed of with a hope that the Government would understand the basic implication in recording any assurance made on behalf of the State by the concerned Law Officer in the Court while dealing with such situations in future and act accordingly. In spite of the same no orders were passed. In the meantime, the petitioner had also preferred an appeal to the State Level Vigilance Scrutiny Committee questioning the order of the District Level Committee dated 25.4.2008. THE said appeal was rejected by order dated 04.12.2009. THE order of dismissal from the College dated 11.8.2008 and the order of the State Level Committee dated 04.12.2009 are questioned in this writ petition.

(2.) MR.K.Doraisamy, learned senior counsel would fairly submits that the petitioner is not interested to question the order of the State Level Committee as of now as an assurance has been given before this Court for considering the representation made by the petitioner to include the Telegu Patti Chetty community under the Most Backward Community. The petitioner will work out his remedy before the Government in this regard.

(3.) WE gave our anxious consideration to the rival submissions as the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the impugned order has not been questioned and the petitioner would be at liberty to canvass his grievance before the State Government, we are not inclined to go into that question in this writ petition. Insofar as the second request is concerned, the directions of the Apex Court issued under similar circumstances may be referred to and they are extracted here under: (i) In CHARLES K.SKARIA AND OTHERS v. DR.C.MATHEW AND OTHERS (1980 (2) SCC 752) while dealing with similar circumstances, the Apex Court has observed as follows: