R GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM SECRETARY STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ADI DRAVIDAR AND TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to belong to 'Malai Vedan' community which is a scheduled tribe. He made an application to the Tahsildar and a community certificate dated 23-11-1981 was issued by the Tahsildar to the petitioner in proceedings No.Na.Ka.A4.21947/81. He was thereafter appointed in the first respondent-Bank. At the time of appointment he was asked to produce a fresh community certificate in the proper format. This has also been produced. When he was in Erode he applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer who was then the appropriate authority to issue Schedule Tribe community certificates for his son Kannan. THE District Collector, Erode sent a report that the petitioner did not belong to Malai Vedan community but the Hindu Vettuvar Community. This report was also forwarded to the second respondent Committee and the second respondent issued a notice on 03-10-2005 for enquiry. THE petitioner filed W.P.no.35737 of 2005 since the second respondent had proceeded on the basis of the discreet report. THEreafter, the writ petition was not pressed and dismissed. THE second respondent proceeded with the enquiry and cancelled the community certificate on 27-10-1983. Against that an appeal has been filed to the first respondent. In the mean time, the Bank had terminated his services and thereafter, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that G.O.(2D) No.108/2 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-I) Department dated 12-09-2007 requires only the State Level Committee to scrutinize the Scheduled Tribe certificate, the petitioner should be given the said opportunity.

(3.) THE first document is the community certificate given on 23-11-1981. In this, the Deputy Tahsildar's signature is not found. THEre is no signature of the Village Administrative Officer nor the Revenue Inspector and the seal is different from the usual Government seal. With regard to the second document, again the Tahsildar had not signed the certificate, it is merely signed as true copy. In his school records the petitioner has been shown as Vetuvan. Subsequently, with regard to his younger brother the community is shown as Malaivedan. THE District Level Vigilance Committee came to the conclusion that the mention of the community as Vetuvan in the petitioner's certificate is alone correct and that subsequently, to take the advantages of the reservation, the other brother has shown himself as Malaivedan. THE District Level Vigilance Committee held that there is no document to show how the petitioner had managed to get a certificate as Malaivedan though his school records show him as Vetuvan. THEre were other reasons, also, which weighed with the District Level Vigilance Committee with regard to the non-mention of the address and failure to prove the relationship between certain persons with the petitioner. But these may not be very crucial if otherwise the documents produced by the petitioner is convincing. However, the Anthropology expert also came to the conclusion that the examination of the petitioner shows that he did not have the special features of Malaivedan. For all these reasons, the Three Member District Level Vigilance Committee cancelled the certificate. THEy directed the petitioner file an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. THE matter was pending before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, when this writ petition was filed and obviously stay has been obtained.