LAWS(MAD)-1991-6-1

G ELANGO Vs. MADRAS PORT TRUST

Decided On June 14, 1991
G.ELANGO Appellant
V/S
MADRAS PORT TRUST Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been field for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in his Memo No. PI/613/84/h dated November 15, 1984 and consequently direct the respondents to act upon the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar which has been already produced by the petitioner.

(2.) IT is unnecessary at this stage to deal with the various factual claims in the affidavit for adjudicating the issue involved before me. The respondents have ripped a counter affidavit and the stand taken therein is, that there is nothing wrong in the employer calling upon the petitioner to produce a community certificate from a Revenue Divisional Officer.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that a Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in S. P. Sakthi Devi v. The Collector of Salem, Salem, etc. 98. L. W. 104 categorically held that the order of the State Government obliging the production of a community certificate in respect of certain communities including Konda Reddies Community from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned is to be confined in its application to employment under the State Government and the State Government Undertakings. The Division Bench also declared the position that so far as the employment under the Central Government and the Central Government Undertakings is concerned, the instructions of the Central Government contained in the Brochure reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe services alone apply, according to which the production of a community certificate from the Tahsildar concerned is enough. Consequently, the certificate produced from the Tahsildar constitutes sufficient compliance in law and the direction of the respondents to the petitioner to produce a community certificate from a different authority is contrary to law and in excess of the jurisdiction and the authority vested in the Respondent. Hence the writ petition has to be allowed to this limited extent of quashing the impugned proceedings.