AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—The petitioners in both the writ petitions are mother and son and by these writ petitions, they are challenging the
orders passed by the second respondent Committee, cancelling their community certificates.
The case of Mrs. C. Chandrika, the petitioner in W.P. No. 34548 of 2005 (since deceased) is that she belong to ''Malai Arayan'' community
and her ancestors were originally residing at Thiruvannamalai, North Arcot District and thereafter residing at Kadaperi village, Maduranthakam
Taluk, Chengalpattu District; that after the marriage of her parents, they have migrated towards City for employment for their livelihood and were
residing at No. 23, Mosque Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5 and thereafter gone to Bombay and her parents came to Tamil Nadu and she was born
at Thiruvannamalai at her grand-father Shivanantham''s house on 21.11.1943; that she studied up to 1st standard in a hut school at
Thiruvannamalai and standards 2 and 3 at Triplicane, Chennai in ''Hindumadha Padasalai''; that thereafter she went along with her parents to
Bombay and studied there from 4th standard to XI standard at ''Rashtra Basha Maha Vidhyalaya'', Deodar Road, Matunga at Bombay-19; that
when she was studying in that school, it was mentioned in the school certificate that her caste name was ''Malai Arayan'' as furnished by her
parents and that her parents have arranged her marriage with one S. Chandrsekar, whose ancestor''s native place is also a village near to
Thiruvannamalai and thereafter, he migrated to Pondicherry and then gone to Bombay for employment.
The further case of the petitioner Mrs. S. Chandrika is that her son Karthikeyan (the petitioner in W.P. No. 27311 of 2005) was born on
29.11.1963 at Bombay and thereafter, due to insufficient income for the family, she has applied for employment at Baba Atomic Research Centre
Trombay, Bombay and she was selected and appointed as Tradesman on 10.8.1967 at Electronics Corporation of India, Electronic Division
Atomic Energy, Government of India undertaking and thereafter, her daughter Kasthuri Aparna was born on 30.10.1971 and thereafter, due to
some disputes, her husband went to Chengalpattu and doing agriculture and petty cloth business and he used to visit Hyderabad and they used to
go to Pondicherry and her son was admitted at Kalva College School, Pondicherry and thereafter, he was admitted in Atomic Energy Central
School, Hyderabad and at Vasasi Engineering College and obtained B.E. degree.
The further case of the petitioner Mrs. S. Chandrika is that their community name was mentioned as ''Malaiarayan'' in the school certificates of
herself and her son and thereafter, they have applied for community certificates, mentioning their native address at No. 38, Padaram Street,
Kadaperi, Maduranthakam Taluk, Chengalpattu, though they are having residing address at Hyderabad and Triplicane, Chennai and the Tahsildar
of Maduranthakam, based on the report of the Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector''s Report, issued the community certificates
on 23.5.1986 as they belong to ''Malai arayan'' caste, a scheduled tribe community; and on the basis of the social status certificate, her son was
appointed as an Engineer Trainee at Electronic Corporation of India and she was promoted as Assistant Personal Officer from the post of Office
Assistant.
From the materials placed on record, it is seen that based on a complaint, the matter regarding their community certificates was referred to CBI
during the year 1990-91 and thereafter, the Department has referred that community certificates of the petitioners to the District Collector, then
Chengalpattu District, now Kancheepuram District, for verification of the genuineness of their caste status, and the Sub Collector, in his report
dated 4.12.1995 and 22.1.1996 reported that the field inspection conducted at the address revealed that no such persons ever resided at No. 38,
Pandara Street, Maduranthakam during 1986 and has also reported that they are most likely obtained the community certificates by giving false
address; that based on the report of the Sub Collector , Chengalpattu, the District Collector issued notices of personal appearance to the
petitioners and after conducting enquiry, the District Collector has cancelled both the community certificates of the petitioners by his proceedings
dated 28.3.1997 and based on the above order of the District Collector, the employer had taken disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners
and terminated their services. Challenging the same, W.P. No. 7576 of 1997 and W.P. No. 10237 of 1997 were filed by the petitioners, wherein
a learned single Judge of this Court has ordered that the District Collector should refer the matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
Accordingly, the matters were referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and since the said Committee, has cancelled the community
certificates of the petitioners, they have come forward to file these writ petitions.
On behalf of the petitioners, the consistent stand taken by them is that they belong to ''Malai Arayan'' community and considering all the
circumstances, the Tahsildar of Madurantakam has issued the community certificate, which, on improper consideration, was cancelled by the
District Collector and the Committee. In support of their contentions, the petitioners would produce a copy of the School Leaving Certificate of
Mrs. Chandrika issued by the Rashtra Bhasha Maha Vidyalaya, Bombay, wherein as against the column ''race and caste'', it has been mentioned
that ''malai arayan-Hindu''.
But, on the part of the respondents, it has been mentioned that they have verified the above said School Leaving Certificate and found that
initially it has been written as ''arayan-Hindu'' and subsequently the term ''malai'' has been prefixed before the word ''arayan'' and the letters
''arayan-Hindu'' written in hand by ink also differ from the words ''malai'' and thus the certificate is a fabricated one.
The undisputed fact is that the petitioners have applied for their community certificate by offering the address at No. 38, Padaram Street,
Kadaperi, Maduranthakam Taluk, Chengalpattu, on 23.5.1986, during which time, both the petitioners, are not at all residing at the said address,
which has been clearly revealed in the spot inspection conducted by the Sub Collector. Neither the house-owner nor the neighbours of No. 38,
Padaram Street, Kadaperi, Maduranthakam Taluk identified the petitioners photographers and they have, in unequivocal terms, stated that they
have never seen such persons. We fail to understand that when the petitioners are permanently residing elsewhere, how could they offer the
address of Kadaperi, Maduranthakam Taluk, Chengalpattu to obtain the community certificate. If at all the petitioners have to apply for the
community certificate, they could do it only at the place where they are residing and therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners
have managed to get false community certificates from the Maduranthakam Taluk office.
It has been the report of the revenue officials, after enquiry that the petitioner Mrs. Chandrika belongs to ''arayar'' community, which is a
Backward Class and only to pluck away the benefits attached to the Scheduled Tribe communities, she has falsely claimed as if she belong to
''malai arayan'' community, a scheduled tribe community. It has also been submitted by the respondents that the ''malai arayan'' community people
are not available in the Chengalpattu District and the said community is familiar only at Kanniyakumari and Shenkota Taluk of Tirunelveli District.
Further more, at the time of joining the duty, the petitioner Mrs. Chandrika has answered in the attestation form, to the question ''whether she is a
member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe'' as ''NO''. Even though now the petitioner claims that the said form has been filled by her colleague
and not by herself, the same cannot be accepted. Since being an educated lady and working as a responsible officer, she cannot plead ignorance
and we have no hesitation to hold that only to get over the problem, she has resorted to this type of false assertion. Had there been truth in the
contention of the petitioner Mrs. Chandrika that she belong to ''Malai arayan'' community, she should have submitted the community certificate
obtained by her on an earlier occasion from the competent revenue authorities. But, no such certificate was produced by the petitioner, except the
above mentioned School Leaving Certificate, the genuineness of which is under thick clouds of suspicion, with no material to support the
contention of the petitioner Mrs. Chandrika.
The other thing which remained unanswered throughout is the community of the husband of the petitioner Mrs. Chandrika. Ours is a patriarchy
society and the community of the father will be the community of his wards. But, in the cases on hand, no proof has been produced before this
Court to show that the husband of Mrs. Chandrika and the father of Mr. Karthikeyan belongs to ''malai arayan'' community, a Scheduled Tribe
community. At this juncture, we feel it apt to quote a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Anjan Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Others, . In the said case, the husband belonged to a forward class community and wife belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community and their son
claimed the communal status as that of the mother and claimed benefits under the Scheduled Tribe quota. The Honourable Apex Court has held, in
unequivocal terms, as follows:
The appellant is not entitled to get the Scheduled Tribe certificate.
The condition precedent for granting tribe certificate is that one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs. The offshoots of the wedlock of a
tribal woman married to a non-tribal husband '' Forward Class (kayastha in the present case) cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status. The reason
being that such offshoot was brought up in the atmosphere of Forward Class and he is not subjected to any disability. However, the situation will
be different in a case where a tribal man married a non-tribal woman. In that case the offshoots of such wedlock would obviously attain the tribal
status.
The object of Articles 341, 342, 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4-A) is to provide preferential treatment for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
having regard to the economic and educational backwardness and other disabilities wherefrom they suffer. So also, considering the typical
characteristic of the tribal including a common name, a contiguous territory, a relatively uniform culture, simplistic way of life and a tradition of
common descent, the transplantation of the outsiders as members of the tribe or community may dilute their way of life apart from the fact that such
persons do not suffer any disabilities.
In this judgment, the appellant has referred to a circular dated 4.3.1975 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on the
subject ""status of children belonging to the couple one of whom belongs to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes"" and particularly referred to the
portion ''when a Scheduled Tribe woman married a non-scheduled Tribe man, the children from such marriage may be treated as members of the
Scheduled Tribe community, if the marriage is accepted by the community and the children are treated as members of their own community. But,
the Honourable Apex Court has refused to give any weightage to the said circular on the ground that ''such circulars issued from time to time, not
being law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution, it would be of no assistance to the appellant on the face of the constitutional
provisions...''
Therefore, until and unless there is any acceptable evidence to show that the father of the petitioner Mr. Karthikeyan belongs to ''malai arayan''
community, so as to claim that he also belongs to ''malai arayan'' community. But, throughout Mr. Karthikeyan is seen claiming the alleged
community of his mother, which cannot be permitted in a society of patriarchy. Further more, even the mother of the petitioner by name Mrs.
Chandrika herself is found to have not belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community of ''malai arayan''.
On a thorough analysis of the entire materials placed on record, we find that the petitioners not at all belong to the scheduled tribe community
of ''malai arayan'' and after conducting thorough enquiry into the matter, by affording all reasonable opportunities to the petitioners, the authorities
have arrived at an unerroneous conclusion of canceling the community certificates fraudulently obtained by the petitioners, wherein we find no
irregularity or illegality to cause our interference.
For all the above discussions and reasons, both the above writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.