P MARAGATHAMANI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional officer, Tiruchirapalli, the first respondent herein, even dated 26.07.1999, in Pa.Mu.11707/95(A.4) and in Na.Ka.A4.6467/97 respectively, whereby the first respondent refused to issue the community certificates to the respective petitioners that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.No.14486 of 1999 and the petitioner in W.P.No.14487 of 1999 will be referred to as the first petitioner and second petitioner respectively. 3.1. Both the petitioners relied upon the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri, dated 25.7.1972 and 4.4.1978 respectively that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners were appointed as N.M.Rs. in the second respondent/management based on the above said community certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri. However, the second respondent/management issued show cause notices to both the petitioners proposing to dismiss them from service on the ground that they do not belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken community, a scheduled tribe, which necessitated the petitioners to approach the Civil Court by filing O.S.Nos.1909 of 1995 and O.S.No.1914 of 1995 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli. The said suits were decreed ex-parte by orders even dated 10.6.1996, with a direction to the defendants/revenue authorities to issue community certificates to the respective petitioners before 10.9.1996. 3.2. As the aforesaid direction of the civil Court was not complied with, the first petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15355 of 1998, whereunder, this Court, by order dated 11.2.1999, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli, the first respondent herein, to dispose of the representation of the first petitioner for issuance of community certificate, within a period of five months. Similarly, the second petitioner filed W.P.No.15357 of 1998, whereunder this Court by order dated 11.3.1999 issued a similar direction. 3.3. Before the first respondent, both the petitioners relied upon the community certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri, dated 24.4.1972 and 4.4.1978 respectively, as well as the decree of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Trichy, in the respective suits, referred to earlier and also produced other documentary evidence. The first respondent herein, after hearing both sides, by the impugned proceedings, refused to give credential to the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioners and rejected the request to issue community certificates that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken community, a scheduled tribe, on the basis of the discreet enquiry conducted by him personally at Thiruverumbur in respect of the first petitioner and at South Kattur in respect of the second petitioner and also on the basis of the report of the District Collector, Trichy, that they do not belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken community. Hence, the present writ petitions by the petitioners. 4.1. Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to our notice that in both the cases, the community certificates issued to the petitioners dated 25.7.1972 and 4.4.1978 respectively by the Tahsildar, Musiri, were not cancelled till date. 4.2. It is also contended that neither the District Collector, Trichy, nor the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first respondent herein, issued any notice with regard to any enquiry at the native place of the petitioners about the genuineness of the community certificates produced by them and therefore, the enquiries of the District Collector as well as the first respondent herein held in the native place of the petitioners are nothing but discreet enquiries and hence, the findings thereupon cannot be acted upon against the petitioners by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned proceedings, as there is apparent violation of principle of natural justice for having not given opportunity to the petitioners in the discreet enquiry conducted by the District Collector. 4.3. Finally, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even assuming that the revenue authorities are competent enough to scrutinize the genuineness of the community certificates issued to the petitioners, pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, [(1994) 6 SCC 241], the same could be exercised by the District Level Vigilance Committee/State Level Scrutiny Committee and in the instant case, since the petitioners claim that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe, the genuineness of their community certificate can only be scrutinised by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 5.1. Mr. K. Elango, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, fairly submitted that even though the impugned orders came to be passed pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.Nos.15355 and 15357 of 1998 by orders dated 11.2.1999 and 11.3.1999 respectively to the first respondent to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners, the fact remains that in both the cases, the community certificates dated 25.7.1972 and 4.4.1978 issued to the respective petitioners were not cancelled till date by the revenue authorities concerned and in any event, pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court dated 2.9.1994, in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, [(1994) 6 SCC 241] referred supra, the genuineness of the community certificates in the case of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes can be scrutinized only by the State Level Scrutiny Committee/District Level Vigilance Committee and neither the first respondent herein nor the District Collector has power to consider the representation of the petitioners either to grant or reject the request for issuance of community certificates that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe. 5.2. Mr. K. Ilango, learned Special Government Pleader, also brought to our notice the relevant G.Os. passed pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, referred supra with regard to the constitution of Committees and their functions thereupon in respect of scrutinisation of community certificates relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. He also produced a copy of G.O.(2D).No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-1) Department, dated 12.9.2007 as well as the latest G.O.(2D).No.3, dated 31.1.2008. 6. Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/management, invited our attention to the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.20765 to 20767 of 1998 filed by the first petitioner herein, namely, P.Maragathamani, reported in 2006 (1) CTC 497, wherein the Full Bench has held as follows:- "42. In these writ petitions, as indicated above, the main point relates to the maintainability of the suit and its binding nature on the authorities. Since we have held in the earlier paragraphs that the suit is not maintainable and, as such, it is not binding on the authorities, we cannot but say that the orders impugned would not suffer from any infirmity, especially in the light of the fact that the principles of natural justice have been fully complied with. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs." (emphasis supplied) and contended that in view of the fact that the dismissal of the petitioners have already been confirmed by the above decision of the Full Bench, the question of scrutinisation of the community certificates issued to the petitioners need not be gone into again in the present writ petitions. 7. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 8.1. At this juncture, it is apt to refer the procedures to be followed for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241], referred supra, which read thus:- 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.

(3.) EACH Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.