A.P. Arockiam vs The Director of most backward Classes and Donotified Communities, The Special Deputy Collector and The Asst Director of Employment Exchange

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 6637 of 2000 before theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking for a direction to the third Respondent to sponsor her name tothe second Respondent to be appointed as s SecondaryGrade Teacher with effect from 05.09.2000.

In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 8322 of 2006.

The Petitioner''s name was not sponsored be causeher community was described as Christian PiramalaiKallar. In G.O. Ms. No. 28 Backward Classes and MostBackward Classes Welfare Department, dated 19.07.1994,the Government has classified the communal treatment of Christian converts and there is no reference to personswho have converted to Christianity also be eligible for such benefits arising out of the reservation made infavour of such communities. However, the Petitioner by aninterim order dated 07.09.2000 was directed to be considered for the interview. The results of theinterview is not known since the Tribunal itself directedthe results to be kept in abeyance until further orders.

The contention of the Petitioner was that the school run under the supervision of the second Respondent namely Kallar Reclamation, preference are given to Piramalai Kallar Community candidates and if she is takenas a Piramalai Kallar, then there is every chance of her getting appointed to the post of Secondary Grade teacher.

In the counter affidavit filed by the secondRespondent, it is clearly stated that conversion from Hindu religion to other religion such as Christianity can not bring preference as per the notification of theGovernment and once such candidates belonging to Most Backward Community converts themselves into Christianity, they are only considered as Backward Class and not as denotified Community. It is also stated that the only Hindu Piramalai Kallar community people are considered tobe Denotified Communities by the order of the Governmentin G.O. Ms. No. 28 Backward Class and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 19.07.1994. It is because ofthat reason the Petitioner''s name was not considered. Itis also stated that the State Government, itself by aclarification issued by G.O. Ms. No. 7 dated 15.02.1999 had negatived the claim of appointing candidates belonging toPiramalai Community solely on the basis of that communityand had directed the recruitment to be made as per communal roster. In the light of the stand taken by the Respondents, the case of the Petitioner can not be upheld.

It must also be noted that when an associationrepresenting the case of the Piramalai Kallar Community came to challenge the preference given to Piramalai Kallar community people in the matter of selection to theschools run under the Kallar Reclamation department, this Court negatived the exclusive reservation in favour ofone community alone, whereas, there are as many as 49 notified communities. In doing so, this Court also drewinspiration from the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, . In that judgment,the Supreme Court held that once there is a wider classification of a socially, economically and educationally backward community, there can not be anyfurther sub-division with in that class.

Under the circumstances, there is no case madeout. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.