M KARUPPIAH Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, RURAL DEVELOPMENT (E2) DEPARTMENT; DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER; TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, challenging G.O.(2D). No. 58, Rural Development (E.2) Department, dated 25.4.2003 and for a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner in service, with backwages and continuity of service.

(2.) It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Village Administrative Officer, on 12.3.1984 and posted at Jegadhapi Village in Karur District. Thereafter, the petitioner had been posted at Several other places. On 26.11.1988, he was posted at Sembia Natham Village in Kulithalai Taluk. He was a Village Administrative Officer at Sembium, from 26.11.1988 to 13.2.1992. While so, he had issued several certificates, including community certificates, nationality certificates, income certificates etc., to various persons. The said certificates had been issued based on the reports given by the Revenue Inspector, who is the field level officer to verify the facts and to report the same to the Village Administrative Officer concerned.

(3.) It has been further stated that while he was a Village Administrative Officer at Sembiam, thirty Adi Dravidars had approached him for the issuance of the community, income and nationality certificates for obtaining loans under the Integrated Rural Development Scheme from TAHDCO. On receipt of their applications, the petitioner had directed the Revenue Inspector to submit the report, with regard to the genuineness of their claims. The Revenue Inspector, Cuddalore, had made an inspection and had reported that they were eligible for the certificates requested by them. On receipt of the reports from the Revenue Inspector, the petitioner had made his recommendations to the Tahsildar for issuing of the certificates. Thereafter, it is for the Tahsildar to consider the recommendations made by the petitioner and the inspection report of the Revenue Inspector and to issue the necessary certificates to the claimants. There is no independent power vested with the petitioner to issue the certificates. Once the certificates are issued the petitioner has no role in finding out the purpose for which the certificates had been used.