UNION OF INDIA Vs. R RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent/applicant belongs to Kattunaicken community. He has obtained a Community Certificate dated 21.9.1997 from the Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector of Chennai to support his claim of Kattunaicken community (ST community). According to the first respondent/applicant, the said certificate has been issued only after verification of the concerned records including the school records which point out that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. According to the first respondent/applicant, he has been selected and appointed as Technical Operator (Drilling) in the office of the Third Respondent on 1.5.1998 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe. At the time of his appointment, his community certificate has been verified. Later, he has been permitted to continue in service. In November 2005, while he has been travelling in a bus to attend an interview in the Defence Department, he is said to have lost his whole file inclusive of his educational records as well as the Community Certificate. Therefore, he has been perforced to lodge a Police complaint. He has also obtained duplicate certificates for educational records but he has not been issued with the community certificate by the fourth respondent herein. He has also not pursued the matter with the fourth respondent any further.

(2.) In the meanwhile, it transpires that the first writ petitioner/first respondent before the Tribunal requested the District Collector to cause verification of his Community Certificate based on the direction issued by the High Court, Delhi to the effect that Community Certificates submitted by the employees belonging to ST community, are to be scrutinised. But the first respondent/applicant is unaware of these details. The District Collector has informed the first respondent/applicant on 18.9.2007 to the effect that the Community Certificate produced by him is forged one.

(3.) It is the case of the first respondent/applicant that the District Collector of Chennai has not conducted any enquiry by issuance of notice to him before sending the adverse report. Based on the said report submitted by the District Collector, Chennai, the third respondent/third petitioner has directed the first respondent/applicant to furnish another Community Certificate. Once again, the first respondent/applicant has applied for the issuance of fresh Community Certificate. He has not been successful to obtain a Community Certificate at the instance of the second respondent/Personal Assistant (General) to Collector of Chennai.