UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.5.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 953 of 2006. The relief sought for by the applicant before the Tribunal was to declare that the action of the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway in insisting for community certificate in the prescribed format from the Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal or in the alternative to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri to issue community certificate to him in the prescribed format to the effect that he belongs to Kattunayakan community and that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe based on the permanent community certificate dated 26.12.1998 issued by the Assistant Collector, Dharmapuri and consequently, to direct the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway to appoint him as Section Engineer / Works.

(2.) THE case of the applicant, who is a B.E. Degree holder in Civil Engineering and who belongs to Kattunayakan community, which is a Scheduled Tribe, is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Railway Recruitment Board for appointment to the post of Section Engineer / Works and Section Engineer / P.Way, he applied for the same and he came out successful in the selection process, viz., written examination and interview, and he was selected for the post of Section Engineer / Works. It is further stated that when he submitted the certificates including Community Certificate obtained from the Tahsildar for verification, the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway insisted for a certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer. THE grievance of the applicant before the Tribunal was that the Revenue Divisional Officer declined to issue community certificate stating that when permanent community certificate has been issued by the Tahsildar, there is no question of issuing another community certificate in the format prescribed by the Railways and the Chief Personnel officer, Southern Railway is not willing to accept the same and on the contrary, he is insisting for certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer. Apprehending that there are chances for cancellation of his selection in the event of non-production of the certificate as required, the applicant approached the Tribunal with the above O.A.

(3.) HEARD the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the petitioners and perused the materials placed before us.