R SHANKAR Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent, namely, the Deputy Secretary of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in Memorandum No.4131/OTD-C2/2000, dated 8.6.2004, quash the same and direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate,I Class) in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 with appropriate seniority as per law.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are as follows: - THE petitioner was born on 12.3.1964 to Christian parents and the paternal grandfather of the petitioner-s father belonged to Hindu Adi Dravida community in Tamil Nadu and later converted to Christianity. In the year 1983, the petitioner renounced Christianity and reconverted to Hinduism by changing his name as Shankar from Charles and the same was published in the Government Gazette dated 20.4.1983. THE petitioner has stated that Tamil Nadu Hindu Mission, Salem, had issued a certificate to the effect that he renounced Christianity and reconverted to Hinduism. THE petitioner has obtained a Caste Certificate from the Deputy Tahsildar, Gingee, dated 19.10.1983 certifying that he belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida, which is recognised as a Schedule Caste in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is further stated that subsequently the petitioner migrated to Chennai in 1989 and completed his B.L. Degree in the University of Madras and on 28.3.1990 he got himself enrolled as an Advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu. Pursuant to his migration to Chennai, the petitioner obtained a Community Certificate on 16.2.1990 from the Tahsildar, Saidapet, certifying that he belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida community and, based on such certificate, he changed his name in all the educational records. THE petitioner has further stated that his re-conversion to Hinduism was recognised by the community and he participated in the functions of his community people and his communal Associations and he was accepted as a member of the community by the Tamil Nadu Government SC-s/ST-s Employees- Welfare Association. While the matter stood thus, the TamilNadu Public Service Commission called for applications for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, I Class) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service by direct recruitment under the provisions of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1995. THE petitioner applied for the said post and he was called to appear for Written Examinations held on 14.10.2000 and 15.10.2000 under Registration No.995967. THE petitioner appeared and he was provisionally admitted to the oral test and subsequently after interview he was selected, but, his result was with-held on the ground of verification of community. THEreafter, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.126 approved selection of 36 candidates in which the petitioner was at second position, though his results were withheld and not published. THE petitioner thereafter sent a letter dated 27.3.2001 to the Controller of Examinations to furnish his marks obtained in the examination, but there was no reply. THE petitioner subsequently made a representation dated 30.1.2002 to the third respondent to publish the results and issue posting orders. While so, the petitioner received a Memorandum dated 24.5.2002 from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu, whereby he was called upon to be present for an enquiry with regard to his community status on 10.6.2002 with all his original testimonials. THE petitioner participated in the enquiry conducted on 12.6.2002 and produced the certificates in support of his communal status. THEreafter on 25.6.2002 the petitioner again made a representation to the third respondent to publish the results. THE third respondent, in his reply dated 5.7.2002, informed the petitioner that the matter is still under consideration. On receipt of such reply, the petitioner made several representations. THEreafter, the petitioner was served with the impugned Memorandum dated 8.6.2004 by the third respondent wherein he was informed that in pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.27571/95 and as per the clarification of the Government in letter No.81 dated 19.9.2000, the petitioner is not eligible to get the community certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste Adi-Dravidar and also to enjoy the concessions extended by the Government to such caste. THE relevant portion of the impugned order, being relevant, is extracted hereunder :- -2. On addressed by the Commission for a report in the matter, the Chairman, District Vigilance Committee and Collector of Kanchipuram District has reported that in pursuance of the orders of the Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No.27571/95 and as per the clarification of the Government in letter No.81, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 19.9.2000, Thiru R. Shankar is not eligible to get the community certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste Adi-Dravidar and also to enjoy the concessions extended by the Government to Scheduled Caste Adi-Dravidars. Based on the above report of the District Collector, the Commission has since classified the candidate, Thiru.R. Shankar under Backward Class category. Thiru.R. Shankar is hereby informed that based on the marks secured by him and with regard to the rule of reservation of appointments as a Backward Class candidate, he had not reached the zone of selection even for oral test for the said post.- Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State, wherein it is indicated that the petitioner is not eligible for any concession conferred to a Hindu under the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950. It is further indicated that as per the Notification issued by the President of India, a Christian would not come under -Scheduled Caste- and therefore, re-conversion of the petitioner to Hinduism by renouncing Christianity would not confer any right on him to claim community status under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. It is further indicated that the petitioner on misrepresentation had managed to obtain Community Certificate as Adi Dravidar from Gingee taluk in the year 1983 and the subsequent Community Certificate on 16.2.1990 from the Tahsildar, Saidapet. It is also indicated that his change of name in college certificates will not confer any statutory right to him for enjoying the constitutional concessions conferred to Hindu Adi Dravida community. It is further indicated that the report of the Chairman, District Vigilance Committee and Collector of Kanchipuram District, stating that the petitioner is not eligible to get the community certificate as Adi Dravidar, is based on facts and the case of the petitioner is to be rejected.

(3.) NOW it would be proper to consider the contentions raised by either parties and the decisions referred have to be considered in the background of the above factual scenario. Coming to the first submission made by the learned Senior Counsel, he pointed out that when re-conversion of the petitioner to Hinduism was accepted by the members of the caste to which he belonged to prior to conversion, it is for the members of the caste to decide whether or not to admit such a person within the caste. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Air 1976 Sc 939 (C.M. Arumugam V. S. Rajgopal). The main question which arose for consideration in the case before the Supreme Court was that whether a person, who belonged to Adi Dravida caste before his conversion to Christianity could, on re-conversion to Hinduism, once again becomes a member of the Adi dravida caste. While answering the question, the Supreme Court observed that the consistent view taken in this country since 1886 was that on re-conversion to Hinduism, a person can once again become a member of the caste in which he was born and to which he belonged to before conversion to another religion, if the members of the caste accept him as a member. It was further observed that there was no reason, either on principle or on authority, which should compel it to disregard the aforesaid view which had prevailed for almost a century and lay down a different rule on the subject, and finally concluded that on re-conversion to Hinduism, the petitioner in that case can once again revert to his earlier caste, namely, Adi Dravida, which was accepted by the other members of the caste.