G NAGESWARA RAO STATE LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE MEMBER NATIONAL SCHEME FOR LIBERATION AND REHABILITATION OF SCAVENGERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS CHENNAI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ADI DRAVIDAR AND TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated 14.7.2006 informing him the order of the Government made in G.O. Rt. No. 102 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW 3) Department dated 7.7.2006 wherein certain amendments were issued to G.O. Ms. No. 155 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 21.10.1994. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was removed from the State Level Monitoring Committee and in his place, the third respondent was appointed as non-official member for a period of three years, as the State Level Monitoring Committee was constituted for the purpose of the National Scheme for Liberation and Rehabilitation of Scavengers and their dependents (for short, ?NSLRS?)

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is a social worker and he was the General Secretary of Subamathy Groups Nala Sangam and he has been working for the rehabilitation of scavengers and their dependents and he has also formed 90 groups and that he has been fighting for the welfare of the downtrodden community. In order to recognise his work, he was nominated as a non-official member of the State Level Monitoring Committee under the NSLRS vide letter dated 3.9.2004. Under the said order, it was informed that the said order came to be passed pursuant to the decision of the first respondent found in G.O. Ms. No. 155 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 21.10.1994 wherein the direction of the Government of India to frame a scheme for the liberation and rehabilitation of scavengers and their dependents was issued. For this purpose, the Government of India released Rs. 5.8 Crores as the central assistance and the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation (for short, ?TADCO?) has been appointed as agency for implementation of the said scheme. The Government of India, while giving the central assistance, also directed constitution of a State Level Monitoring Committee. Initially, the first respondent constituted the State Level Monitoring Committee comprising of only Government Officials and there was no representation of any Non-Government Official working in that area. Then the Government of India pointed out that in order to give true effect to the said scheme, it should contain non-officials from the scavengers community. Hence, an amendment letter dated 3.9.2004 was issued by the first respondent by including two Non-Government Officials including the writ petitioner. As the period of their tenure is not fixed by the said order, a further order in G.O.D. No. 84 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.6.2005 was issued wherein it was informed that the Non-Official members will function for a period of three years from the date of appointment, viz., 3.9.2004. ACCORDINGly, the petitioners? term will come to an end on 2.9.2007 as per the Government Order and he has been attending all the committee meetings convened from the said date.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has been working under the said scheme and giving his useful suggestions. However, without notice to the petitioner and without having regard to the nature of the scheme and the relevant statutory enactment, the first respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 102 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW 8) Department dated 7.7.2006 with an amendment replacing the petitioner with that of the third respondent. This G.O. Came to be communicated by the second respondent, who is the implementing agency by the impugned order dated 14.7.2006. In none of these letters, the petitioner was informed about the termination of his tenure and no communication was addressed to him directly. Only when the petitioner came to know that certain wall posters are appearing in the city published by the third respondent thanking the Honourable Chief Minister for making the said appointment, he wrote a letter to the respondents 4.7.2006 expressing his shock and also requested for his intervention. Since he did not get any reply, the present petition has been filed.