S PALANI SIVASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working in the Revenue Unit of Dharmapuri District and at the time of filing the Original Application, he was working in Thoothukudi District. THE petitioner's name was included in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars of Dharmapuri District for the year 1992 as per the notification dated 3/2/1993 of the District Collector, Dharmapuri and his name was found in Serial No.26 under B.C. Category. THE Petitioner joined as Deputy Tahsildar on 09.02.1993 and he was reverted as Assistant for want of vacancy during the period from 17.02.1993 to 31.12.1994 and 18/3/1995 to 12/9/1995. From 13/9/1995, he has been continuously working as Deputy Tahsildar. A show cause notice dated 9/5/1997 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why an order should not be passed for correction of his community as 'Thuluva Vellala - Backward Class' in the service register and why he should not be deleted from the list of Deputy Tahisldars for the year 1992. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12/6/1997 through the District Collector. THEreafter, the petitioner did not receive any orders till the date of filing the Original Application. However, the petitioner would contend that by proceedings dated 25/7/1998, the District Collector, Dharmapuri has requested the District Collector, Thoothukudi to make necessary entries in the service register of the petitioner cancelling the entries "Hindu Thuluva Vellalar as B.C.". THE District Collector, Dharmapuri has also passed orders deleting the name of the petitioner from the list of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 1992 and requested the District Collector, Thoothukudi by his proceedings dated 25.07.1998 to revert the petitioner to the post of Assistant.

(2.) THE petitioner would contend that as per the certificate dated 11/2/1986, the applicant was declared as belonging to Thuluva Vellala, which is classified as Backward Community. On the basis of the said certificate, the District Collector, Dharmapuri in his proceedings dated 27/10/1980 ordered the correction of community in the service register of the petitioner and also ordered that the change of Backward Class communal status of the petitioner would come into effect on the date of entries in the service register. THEreafter, the District Collector, Dharmapuri also sent a report to the Special Commissioner on 11/6/1996 stating that the petitioner belonged to Thuluva Vellala, which is classified as Backward Class Community. THE said entry in the service register is now cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not apply for the change of community within five years from the date of entry in service. THE petitioner would further contend that when the Government, by virtue of Circular dated 07.01.1984 extended the time limit for correction in the service register upto 13.04.1986 for old cases, the applicant submitted his application in the year 1986. THE petitioner also contend that in the case of one A. Raju, the Government issued a Government Order dated 15.12.1992 and he was allowed to change the community even though he did not file any application at all for waiving the condition. In similar case, one Showkath Ali approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 10978 of 1983 and this Court, by order dated 30.03.1984 held that the right of the petitioner will date back to the date of declaration of the community, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 263 of 1985. Based on the same, a Government Order was also passed giving benefit to the said Showkath Ali. THErefore, the petitioner's name ought not to have been cancelled by the impugned order. In any event, the impugned order was not legal in view of the fact that having allowed the petitioner to enjoy the fruits of the order, after lapse of eleven years, the respondent cannot resort to cancel the order which had deprived the petitioner of his valuable right.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted that even though it is a delayed representation, the circular dated 7/1/1984 clearly says that in so far as rectification are concerned or change in the community, initial period of three years will not apply. THE time limit in respect of old case have been extended upto 13/4/1986. THE petitioner also relied on the unreported decision of this Court in WP No. 10978 of 2003 wherein, a person, who sought for inclusion of his name in the backward class community pursuant to the declaration made by the Government, was granted by this Court. This Court held that when a person's name is included in respect of a community at a later point of time, it will date back to the date when the original order was passed. In that case, the petitioner therein has approached the concerned authorities in the year 1983, whereas, the Government has issued an order to include backward class community on 30.01.1979. THE Government preferred an appeal against this order in WA No. 263 of 1985 and that was also dismissed. After the dismissal of the writ appeal, the Government issued G.O. Ms.No. 1913, Revenue Department dated 28.08.1990 whereby the name of the petitioner in that case was ordered to be included in the list of Deputy Tahsildar in the backward class quota. THE petitioner case is squarely governed by the proceedings as regards the order of the Division Bench. It was also contended that one A. Raju, a colleague of the petitioner, was also not included in the denotified Kallar community, which was also after the 1986 deadline, whereas in the year 1992 he was given the benefit by virtue of an order dated 15.12.1998 and his name was also included. THErefore, even though the petitioner filed the present application after the deadline of three months from the original instruction, the petitioner, having been allowed to be included as backward class community in the year 1986, there is no reason or rhyme for the government to cancel the order by the impugned proceedings after a decade.