VE MANOHAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT DR PANNEERSELVAM COMPLEX MADURAI ROAD SIVAGANGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai-second respondent dated 2.3.2000, calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on 6.3.2000 for an enquiry regarding his community status, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the said proceedings and for consequential direction forbearing the respondents from conducting any enquiry regarding his community.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- THE petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was working as Senior Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital, Sivagangai. He hailed from Kalayar Mangalam Village of Sivagangai District. He belongs to "Piramalai Kallan" community which is one of the sub-sect of Kallar Community. THE "Piramalai Kallan" Community is classified as a Most Backward Community under the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules as well as recognised as a Denotified Community as per G.O.Ms.No.28/M.B.C. dated 19.7.94 and is included as Serial No.45 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. His elder daughter by name Sri Janaki got admission in Medical College and is undergoing Second year M.B.B.S, in Madurai Medical College, Madurai during 1999-2000. THE petitioner has applied for a community Certificate for his elder daughter Sri Janaki during 1994 and the same was issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Okkur after thorough verification and on the basis of the report of the Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector. THE said Community Certificate is dated 23.11.94. Based on the said Certificate certifying that the petitioner's daughter belongs to "Piramalai Kallan", the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Sivagangai has issued Community Certificate in the prescribed form in his proceedings Vr.No.3/97 in Serial No. 116/97 which was produced for getting admission for his daughter Sri Janaki in the Medical College, Madurai. On the basis of a complaint in the name of a non-existing person, namely K. Subramanian, alleging that the petitioner has obtained false Community Certificate for his daughter, a detailed enquiry has been conducted by the first respondent. On the direction of the first respondent, the second respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted a report holding that petition belongs to "Piramalai Kallan" community and that the certificate issued to his daughter is genuine. Based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector/ first respondent herein intimated the community status to the selection committee, Medical Education, Chennai-10. Based on the report of the Collector, the file relating to the community certificate of the petitioner's daughter Sri Janaki was closed. THE said information was also reported to the Chief Minister's Office, Special Cell, stating that the complaint of K. Subramainain is false, while so, the second respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 2.3.2000 called upon the petitioner to appear for the enquiry with documentary evidence in regard to the issue of community certificate issued in favour of his daughter. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IN view of the narration of facts in the earlier part of my order, it is unnecessary to refer the same once again. Since Sri Janaki, daughter of the petitioner, secured seat in M.B.B.S. course under the quota of Most Backward Community, an enquiry was conducted to verify the genuineness of her community status. Based on the letter of the Principal of the Medical Education, the District Collector was asked to submit a report regarding the community status of the said Sri Janaki. It is also seen that an enquiry was conducted with reference to the complaint made by one K. Subramanian, questioning the community certificate obtained by Sri Janaki. A perusal of the proceedings of the District Collector, Sivagangai dated 10.11.1999 shows that on enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer found that there is no such person by name K. Subramanian and after further enquiry, the Revenue Divisional informed the District Collector that the community Certificate issued in favour of Sri Janaki is genuine. Based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector, Sivagangai in the said proceedings, came to a conclusion that Sri Janaki, daughter of the petitioner belongs to "Hindu Piramalai Kallar". The said proceeding has been communicated to the Principal, Madurai Medical College, Madurai, Additional Director, Medical Education as well as Director of Medical education, Chennai-10. Based on the communication of the District Collector, Sivagangai dated 10.11.99, the Additional Director of Medical Education//Secretary of the Selection Committee , Chennai-10 has informed the Dean, Madurai Medical College that Sri Janaki belongs to Hindu Piramalai Kallar. The very same conclusion has been communicated by Thiru C.S. Jayachandran, Director of Medical Education to the Special Officer, Chief Minister's Cell, Chennai-9. A perusal of all the three documents, namely, proceedings of the District Collector, dated 10.11.66, letter of the Selection Committee, Chennai-10 dated 22.11.99 and the letter of the Director of Medical Education to the Special Officer, Chief Minister's Cell, Chennai-9 dated 22.11.99 clearly show that Sri Janaki, Petitioner's daughter belongs to "Hindu Piramalai Kallar" Community. when such is the position, it is not clear how the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai- 2nd respondent herein has issued the impugned notice dated 2.3.2000 calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry to be held on 6.3.2000. Though certain details regarding the community status and community certificate of Sri Janaki have been furnished in the counter affidavit of the first respondent, absolutely there is no reference about the earlier proceedings of the collector, Sivagangai dated 10.11.99. IN the light of the abundant factual particulars, I am unable to accept the certain particulars furnished in the counter affidavit of the first respondent. The Courts have taken a view that when once community status and community certificate in respect of an individual is verified by the competent authority and found to be correct, the same cannot be re-opened once again. It is also clear from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sakthi Devi v. The Collector of Salem, 1984 WLR 535 and in view of the fact than an enquiry had been conducted earlier in respect of the community of Sri Janaki, daughter of the petitioner and it having ended in her favour, I am of the opinion that the second enquiry initiated by the second respondent cannot be sustained in law. As rightly observed in N. Kumarsami v. The Collector of Chengalpattu M.G.R. District, Kancheepuram and another, 2000 (1) CTC 398 : 2000 TNLJ 132, there are no materials on record as to why the first enquiry report should be rejected.