R RAVICHANDRAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF SALEM DIST SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ravichandran, the petitioner herein, in this writ petition has sought for a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the Collector of Salem, the first respondent in his proceedings in Roc. No. 116604/89 (D.10), dated 10-1-1991 and to quash the order.

(2.) The facts that are required for the disposal of the writ petition could be summarised by follows:-The petitioner claims that he belongs to Konda Reddy community which is one of the communities listed as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. He applied for the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Banking Services Recruitment Board. He was selected in the written test and the interview. He produced his community certificate dated 14-9-1978 issued by the Tahsildar. On the basis of the said certificate, the Banking Services Recruitment Board sponsored the petitioner to the UCO Bank, the second respondent herein for appointment. However, the second respondent-Bank directed the petitioner to produce the community certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer of his area. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 9518 of 1984 to direct the second respondent-Bank to act upon the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur for the purpose of his employment.The Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 20-11-1984 directed that the community certificate already produced by the petitioner should be accepted until the same is cancelled by the District Collector and that the Bank could approach the District Collector for the verification of the said certificate. The Division Bench further directed the second respondent-Bank that the petitioner should be permitted to continue in the employment on a temporary basis until the process of verification is completed. Accordingly, after the petitioner was appointed, the second respondent-Bank referred the matter for verification to the District Collector, Salem. In view of the verification sought for by the second respondent-Bank, the District Collector, the first respondent directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mattur Dam to conduct an enquiry and to submit the report. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent a notice to the petitioner on 21-1-1990 calling upon him to appear for the enquiry relating to his community status. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner produced several documents before the Revenue Divisional Officer to establish that he belongs to Konda Reddy, Scheduled Tribe. After consideration of those materials, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent a report to the District Collector recommending for the cancellation of the community certificate by stating that he did not belong to Konda Reddy. Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 9-11-1990 from the District Collector, the first respondent intimating about the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and he was directed to appear for a personal hearing before the first respondent to produce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his claim.On 3-12-1990 the petitioner appeared before the District Collector, the first respondent and produced the documents. On 7-1-1991 the petitioner sent a letter addressing the first respondent requesting him to furnish a copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer in order to controvert the same. However, by the order dated 10-1-1991, the District Collector, the first respondent passed an order cancelling the certificate and intimated the result to the second respondent-Bank with a request to serve a copy on the petitioner. This order dated 10-1-1991 by the Collector, the first respondent is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Vijaya Sankar the counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, would contend that the impugned order of the first respondent is wholly illegal violating the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be quashed, in view of the fact that it is based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the copy of which was not furnished to the petitioner and thereby proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner to dislodge the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and to prove his claim.