S P SAKTHI DEVI Vs. COLLECTOR OF SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these petitions claims that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe-Konda Reddy and that she had obtained a caste certificate to that effect from the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Sankari on 5.6.1976. She was appointed as an Air Hostess in Indian Airlines under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. At that time, she secured a certificate from the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in the form prescribed under circular issued by the Central Government relating to posts/services in the Central Government and in Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory and Semi-Government Bodies, and voluntary agencies receiving grants in aid from the Central Government. She came to know that the fourth respondent-Indian Airlines had sought for verification regarding the genuineness of the caste certificate. THE first respondent-Collector of Salem had initiated enquiry proceedings through his subordinate officers. On 19.11.1981, the Revenue Inspector came to the village and conducted an enquiry in which statements were obtained from the petitioner� s father and ten other persons. All of them gave statements in support of her claim. Again in December, 1981, the third respondent-Tahsildhar, Sankari conducted an oral enquiry in the presence of the Revenue Inspector, and here again, the persons who have appeared before him have deposed in her favour. Again in January, 1982, when the second respondent-Sub-Collector, Sankari came for holding an enquiry, nearly ten persons were examined, and they also supported the petitioner� s claim. On her behalf, nine documents were produced. She was made to understand that respondents 2 and 3 have sent reports to the first respondent stating that she is a Konda Reddy. On coming to know that her paternal uncle Mr.K.M.Raju, out of jealousy and family feud, had submitted a petition to the first respondent stating that she does not belong to Konda Reddy, her father sent a petition to the first respondent to the effect that if his inimical brother is examined, the petitioner should also be permitted to participate in the enquiry. In spite of being made aware of these factors, the first respondent had written on 1.12.82 to the fourth respondent, stating that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy community, which had resulted in the fourth respondent issuing a show cause notice on 4.2.1982 calling upon her to submit her representations against the proposal to take disciplinary action against her. Challenging this proceedings, W.P.No.1236 of 1983 is filed. W.P.No. 1235 of 1983 is filed to quash the report of the first respondent dated 1.12.1982.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that when a valid certificate had been secured from the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, who is one of the prescribed authorities authorised to issue a caste certificate as per the letter of the Central Government dated 5.8.1975, the fourth respondent being an instrumentality or agency of the Central Government and wholly owned by it, is bound to act upon such a certificate, unless and until the said certificate is cancelled. ON the approach made by the first respondent, it is stated that in spite of himself being put on prior notice that the petitioners paternal-uncle out of family fued had come forward with a false complaint, his statement had been relied upon for the impugned - report, and that she was not afforded a fair opportunity of rebutting this claim. She states that in spite of all the efforts taken to produce several materials before respondents 2 and 3, who in their turn had, forwarded their reports in her favour, the first respondent had deliberately avoided referring to those materials, but forwarded a cryptic report to the fourth respondent relying upon the statements given by her sworn enemies.

(3.) YET another contention taken is, in spite of becoming aware of the falsity of such certificate, they would be compelled to keep those certificate-holders in service employment in spite of powers vested in them to initiate disciplinary proceedings and that such a situation should not be allowed to exist. Here again, this argument overlooks the enablement provided in Chapter XIV to verify the correctness of caste certificate if deemed necessary. Paragraph 14.3 in Chapter XIV enables an appointing authority if it considers necessary for any reason to verify the claim of a candidate through the District Magistrate of the place where himself or his family ordinarily resides. Hence, at the time of remand itself in such of those cases wherein any doubt is entertained, an opportunity is to be given to vouchsafe the correctness or genuineness of the certificate. Irrespective of the several categories of empowered authorities, if the question of verification arises, a highly responsible authority being the District Magistrate-Collector, is authorised to verify the correctness of the certi-cate. This court considers that the Central Government after considerable care had chosen only responsible authorities, oh whom the concerned Governments have disciplinary control, to issue such of those cases where a verification is necessary, to ascertain the correctness of the certificate, no prejudice is caused to recruiting bodies in acting upon such authorised caste certificates. Furthermore, if after remand had been made, circumstances warrant a verification to be made and if it is proved that the candidates claim is false, then his services may be terminated in accordance with the relevant rules/ orders. This being sufficient safeguard provided to act upon caste certificates, the concerned employer cannot insist upon taking a decision regarding the correctness of the caste certificates in disiciplinary proceedings.