ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGION II (OPERATION WING) AND STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, RAMESHWARAM BRANCH; P RAMACHANDRAN Vs. P RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P. No. 289 of 2008 belongs to Veerambal village, Muthukulathur Taluk, Ramnad District. His grand parents and forefathers belonged to Hindu Pallan community, which comes under the Scheduled Caste category under the Presidential order. His parents Thiru.Ponnaiah and Smt.Thangammal originally belonged to Hindu Pallan community and they got converted to Christianity. He was born on 06.03.1952 to Christian parents and hence he was a Christian by birth. He was named as Raju. In school records, his community was shown as Christian Pallan community. He completed his graduation in American College and Post Graduation in Madurai Institute of Social Works in 1978. Thereafter, he converted to Hinduism after undergoing certain ceremonies through Madurai Adheenam on 17.06.1979. On conversion, his name was changed to Ramachandran. Necessary publication was also made in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 18.07.1979. He applied for the community certificate and the Headquarters Tahsildar, Muthukulathur, the competent authority, issued him a community certificate, dated 13.10.1980, after enquiry and verification, certifying that he belongs to Hindu Pallan community, which is a scheduled caste. He was selected for appointment to the post of Clerk against the Scheduled Caste quota by the State Bank of India, who are the second and third respondents in the writ petition. On 06.08.2004, the State Bank of India requested the District Collector to send them a report regarding the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the petitioner.

(2.) The Two Member District Vigilance Committee of Ramnad District enquired into the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the petitioner. The said committee passed an order on 25.03.2005 cancelling the certificate.

(3.) The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee against the order passed by the two member District Vigilance Committee. The State Level Scrutiny Committee set aside the order of the two member committee and remanded back for fresh consideration, by a three member District Vigilance committee as per G.O.Ms.Nos.111, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, dated 06.07.2005. Accordingly, the first respondent, the Three Member Committee enquired into the matter.