D. Dhanam vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R. Mala, J.—This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 88 of 1997, dated 13.03.2003, on the

file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 12 of 1996, dated 30.04.1996, on the file of the

principal District Munsif, Pudukkottai.

The gist and essence of the averments in the plaint is as follows:

The Plaintiff is the daughter of one Durairaj, who hailed from Kulathuranpatti, Keevathur Post, Dindigul District. The Plaintiff''s father was in Police

Department and served in several places. In the year 1962-1963, the plaintiff underwent her primary education in the Municipal Primary School at

Tirugokarnam in Pudukkottai District. All her school records shows that she is belonging to Kattunaicken Community which belongs Scheduled

Tribe category. After her school studies, she joined her B.A Course at Raja Government College, Pudukkottai. Then, she secured a job in

Customs and Central Excise Department.

During that time, she abandoned her B.A. Course. The Trasfer Certificate issued by S.V.M. Government College, Tiruchi shows that the Plaintiff''s

community as Kattunaicken community which belongs to Scheduled Tribe caste. During her service, she finished her B.A degree course. She

applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk. She appeared for the written examination and by direct recruitment, she got appointment as a Upper

Division Clerk. Then she was promoted to Deputy Office Superintendent Level-II in the year 1985 and in the year 1987, she was promoted to

Deputy Office Superintendent Level-I from 02.09.1987 onwards. The Revenue Authorities/The Tahsildar, Alangudi, after making proper enquiry,

issued a Community Certificate that she belongs to Kattunaicken Community which is Scheduled Tribe Caste on 25.05.1972 and accordingly, the

plaintiff enjoyed the fees concession during the college days and availed scholarship since her 9th standard onwards. On 04.07.1985, the

department directed the plaintiff to produce the Community Certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities/Tahsildar, Alangudi. Accordingly, the

same was produced on 08.07.1985. Then she was directed to inform her native place and address and accordingly she furnished the same. After

that the employer of the plaintiff has referred the matter for verification stating that how she was issued with the Community Certificate. She

appeared before him and produced all the certificates. The plaintiff has also submitted her letter of requisition dated 02.03.1982 to examine further

witnesses which was acknowledged but there was no response from the third defendant. She received a proceeding dated 15.02.1990 stating that

the Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Alangudi, dated 25.05.1972 is not correct and that she is not belonging to Kattunaicken

Community,but, she belongs to Kavara Naidu community. Thereupon, the plaintiff by means of letter dated 24.02.1990, requested the second

defendant that she has to secure the related documents from her relatives and hence she wants time to reply and she wanted time upto

10.03.1990. The Second defendant issued a show-cause notice. The first and second defendants have not given any opportunity to reply the

show-cause notice and hence now she is challenging the decision of the show-cause notice of the second defendant, dated 15.02.1990. Hence,

she is constrained to file a suit for declaration that the impugned proceedings in R.C. No. B-1/34940/89, dated 15.02.1990 issued by the second

defendant as void, illegal and ultra vires and also for other consequential reliefs.

The gist and essence of the averments in the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the defendants 1 and 3 are as

follows:

According to the notification issued by the Union Government, there is no Kattunaicken community residing at Dindigul District. The service

register of the plaintiff''s father reveals that he belong to Gavara Naidu community. The mother of the plaintiff belongs to Naidu community. So, she

also belongs Gavara Naidu Community. The plaintiff has suppressed the fact that she is a native of Dindigul District and obtained the Community

Certificate on 25.05.1972 from the Tahsildar, Alangudi. It is not valid under law. The collector of Customs and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli in

R.C. No. 11/39/33/95 BG, dated 11.02.1998, addressed to the District Collector, Dindigul to verify and report the genuineness of the Community

Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Alangudi in Pudukkottai District. As per the directions of the the District Collector, Dindigul District, an enquiry

has been conducted and after verification and enquiry, the third defendant Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul had forwarded his report along with

document to the District Collector, Dindigul in proceedings in R.C. 6549/88G, dated 17.02.1989. As the plaintiff having submitted the enquiry

without any protest, she is estopped from contending that the enquiry is not according to the rules and norms prescribed under Law. As per rule,

the second defendant is the competent authority to pass the order following the procedure and order has been passed after giving an opportunity to

the plaintiff to substantiate her claim as contemplated under law. The plaintiff must prove that to which community she belongs to, apart from the

entries in the S.S.L.C. Book because the entries in the S.S.L.C. Book are made only on the representation made by the parents of the plaintiff and

they are entered on strict verification. The suit filed by the plaintiff is a prematured one. The Central Government and the appointing authority are

necessary parties to the suit. The suit is not maintainable u/s 80 of C.P.C. Hence it is prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs.

The averments in the Written Statement filed by the fourth respondent is as follows:

This defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

The trial court after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement had framed five issues and three additional issues and after

considering the oral and documentary evidence and Exhibits marked under Ex.A1 to A17 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 and oral evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.5, dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 88 of 1997 before the Subordinate

Judge, Pudukkottai and the first appellate court after framing five points for consideration and three additional points for consideration, dismissed

the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Pudukkottai. Against the plaintiff as the appeallant has

preferred the present Second Appeal before this Court.

This Court after considering the entire material records, admitted the Second Appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law:

Whether thelearned Appellate Judge is correct in summarily rejecting the case on the ground that the suit is not maintainable u/s 9 of C.P.C.?

Whether the learned appellate Judge is correct in holding that the appellant cannot invoke jurisdiction of the civil suit and is bound to convince

the authorities in deciding the community status, in spite of the fact that the revenue authorities have failed to consider the various documents filed

by the appellant?

Wheter the learned Appellate Judge is correct in following the decisions rendered in State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. A. Gurusamy, when

the Supreme Court has not specifically barred filing of a suit as clarified in the case of Ayyappan v. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli and Anr.

2001 W L.R. 126 and also the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Durairaj 2002 (2) CTC 425?

During the argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that as per the decision in P. Maragathamani Vs. General Manager

(In-charge), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, The Manager (S.C.) Valves, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., The Revenue Divisional Officer and

The Dy. General Manager (S.C.) Valves, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., , the suit itself is not maintainable and the civil court has no jurisdiction to

deal with the said question and only the Scrutiny Committee will have go into the matter and decide the questions relating to community certificate

to enable the authorities to decide the same. As per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, in Gurusamy''s case,it reads as follows:

The Supreme Court, in Gurusamy''s case and Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case, gave a specific finding that the Civil Court has not jurisdiction to

deal with the said question and only the Scrutiny Committee will have to go into it, to decide the question relating to the community certificate, to

enable the authorities to decide the same in the quickest possible time.

There is a specific finding by the Supreme Court that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the said question and only the Scrutiny

Committee will have to go into it, to decide the question relating to the Community Certificate to enable the authorities to decide the same in the

quickest possible time. Further in Madhiri Patil''s case also the Supreme Court has directed all the State Government to appoint a Scrutiny

Committee to verify the genuineness of the certificate and that the conclusion arrived by this Scrutiny Committee alone is final and any other

authority cannot interfere in it, which reads as follows:

34.... in Gurusamy''s case, there is a specific finding by the Supreme Court that there is an implied bar to the institution of the suit in Civil Court in

regard to declaration that a person belongs to a particular community. Further, in Madhiri Patil''s case also, the Supreme Court directed all the

State Governments to appoint a Scrutiny Committee to verify the genuineness of the certificates and that the conclusion arrived at by the Scrutiny

Committee alone is final and any other authority cannot interfere with that. This would mean that to achieve the purpose of the genuine persons

getting benefits of reservations at the earliest point of time by following the fair procedure, the Scrutiny Committee alone should be allowedto go

into the question and conduct an inquiry by giving opportunity to the candidates and pass a final order, which could be subject to review either by

High Court or by the Supreme Court.

So a suit in a civil court for declaration that the person belonging to a particular community is not maintainable. So the learned Counsel for the

respondent also not made any objection. He also conceded that the suit is not maintainable.

Considering the arguments of both counsel and decision cited supra, this Court comes to the conclusion that the suit itself is not maintainable as

per the decision in Gurusamy''s case and P. Maragathamani Vs. General Manager (In-charge), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, The Manager

(S.C.) Valves, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., The Revenue Divisional Officer and The Dy. General Manager (S.C.) Valves, Bharat Heavy

Electricals Ltd., and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the genuineness of the Community Certificate and hence the suit and the present

Second Appeal is not maintainable. There is no merit in the Second Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the Second Appeal is dissmissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.