UMAPATHY RAMASWAMY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the proceedings of the first respondent in CNC/dac/590/cf 350 PS dated 5. 6. 2002 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Clerk with all consequential benefits.

(2.) TODAY, when the above matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and obtained community Certificate on 5. 12. 1978 to that effect; that she was selected as Clerk in Telecom department in the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste and worked in that capacity from 1979 to 1985; that on 2. 11. 1979, the petitioner married one Ramasamy, who belongs to Malayali community; that according to law, the wife would embrace the husband's community after marriage and hence the petitioner obtained community Certificate on 27. 1. 84 that she is a Malayali; that she got appointment in the first respondent's Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier under the Scheduled Tribe quota; that the District Level Vigilance Committee, consisting of two members, without holding proper enquiry and without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, by an order dated 24. 7. 2000, cancelled the community Certificate; that the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent viz. the State Level Scrutiny Committee; that when the appeal was pending, the first respondent terminated the services of the petitioner without any show cause notice; that the petitioner filed W. P. No. 18669 of 2000 before this Court, challenging the order of termination and the said writ petition was dismissed; that the petitioner has filed W. A. No. 2258 of 2001 before this Court and the same was admitted and is pending; that the appeal filed before the second respondent was rejected, holding that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community only and wanted the first respondent to objectively consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the Scheduled Caste quota and pass necessary orders to that effect; that the first respondent without considering the case of the petitioner, rejected her request for appointment and hence she would seek for the relief extracted supra.

(3.) IN support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decisions reported in MADHURI PATIL v. ADDL. COMMR. , TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT (A. I. R. 1995 S. C. 94), wherein it is held that the order passed by the second respondent, consists of two member Committee, is not valid. The committee should consist of three members. He also relied on the decision reported in VALSAMMA PAUL v. COCHIN UNIVERSITY ( (1996) 3 S. C. C. 545) in paragraph 34 in support of his submission and submits that the respondent-Bank is not in any way prejudiced in appointing the petitioner.