LAWS(MAD)-2006-11-66

D CHITRA Vs. COLLECTOR SALEM DISTRICT

Decided On November 15, 2006
D.CHITRA Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR SALEM DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order dated 29. 10. 2001 made in W. P. No. 10858 of 1993, in and by which, the learned Single Judge, after finding that there is no merit, has dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner/appellant, she belongs to 'konda Kappua' community, which is one of the communities listed as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 passed by the President by virtue of the powers conferred upon him under Article 342 of the Constitution and listed as such under Central Act 108/76. When the second respondent-All India Radio, Government of India, Madras, called for applications for the post of Engineering Assistants in the year 1989, the petitioner applied under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. She was selected both in written test as well as in the interview and appointed to the said post with effect from 16. 10. 1989. At the time of interview, she had produced a community certificate dated 09. 07. 1983 issued by the Tahsildar (Forests Settlements), Attur Taluk. At the time of her appointment, the second respondent has directed her to produce another community certificate. The petitioner has obtained another community certificate in the year 1989 from the Special Tahsildar (Debt Relief), Salem, in the prescribed form. According to the petitioner, both the certificates were issued by the Officers, who are competent to issue the same. The said certificates were issued by the authorities only after enquiry and after satisfying themselves. While so, the first respondent-Collector, Salem District, has issued notice dated 26. 02. 1991 calling upon her to appear for an enquiry with regard to the verification of her community status. But, the fact remains that she did not attend the enquiry. The same was intimated to the second respondent. The second respondent, once again, through their memo, called for further particulars relating to the enquiry and also intimated the petitioner with a request to produce valid community certificate from the Officer authorised. Questioning the said memo, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court.