G VENKATESAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to belong to Konda Reddy community. At the time of filing the writ petition, he was undergoing his Ph. D. in Engineering at the National Institute of Technology, which is a part of Regional Engineering College, Tiruchy. He wanted to apply for a job and since for issuance of Community Certificate to ST (Konda Reddy is one), the authority is the Revenue Divisional Officer, he applied for issuance of the Certificate sometime in 2004. No enquiry was held and no certificate was issued. Therefore, he filed W. P. No. 1840 of 2006 for a mandamus. By order dated 10-03-2006, this Court directed the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders on the application for issuance of Community Certificate. Thereafter, on 23-03-2006, in Na. Ka. No. 10649-2005 (D), the impugned order was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for issuance of the Community Certificate.

(2.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed as many as 96 documents and the second respondent had proceeded to consider all those documents without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if opportunity had given, the petitioner would have explained many of the doubts which might have needed clarification. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the second respondent had referred to the various sale deeds executed by relatives of the petitioner where the Community name has been given, but had rejected all those sale deeds on the ground that the relationship between the petitioner and the parties to the sale deed have not been explained. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that only if opportunity had been given to the petitioner, could he have clarified these doubts. When the petitioner was not asked to appear the petitioner had no scope for explaining anything. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that such a discreet enquiry is not an enquiry in the eye of law and in 1996 WLR 482 (Illamaran, D. Vs. Govt. of India), this Court had held that an order passed on the basis of a discreet enquiry wihtout giving opportunity to the person concerned infringes the principles of natural justice and remitted the matter for consideration afresh. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proper procedure would be to remit the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer directing him to give an opportunity to the petitioner to issue a Community Certificate on the basis of the documents furnished by the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Special Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that it is not the quantity of evidence that matters, but the quality and the Revenue Divisional Officer had given a detailed order giving reasons as to why he was unable to accept the petitioner's case that he belonged to Konda Reddy. The learned Special Government Pleader referred to AIR 1995 SC 94 (Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development) where the caste of a candidate registered in School admission register as Hindu Koli was subsequently changed to Mahadeo Koli, and the Supreme Court held that then such claimants cannot take the benefit of the reservation since their status cannot be said to have properly established. The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out to the various paragraphs in the impugned order which showed that the petitioner who was a Reddy subsequently, changed it to Konda Reddy to get the benefits of reservation. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the order does not deserve to be reviewed and the order is not susceptible to review and it should be confirmed.