K. Santha vs The District Collector, Madurai, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District, The Sub-Collector, Usilampatti, Madurai District and The Director of Postal Services, Madurai

A.K. Rajan, J.—The above writ petition is filed for issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings in NI.

Mu.79288/88 (ADW-8) dated 22.9.1994 of the first respondent and quash the order passed therein.

The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1975 by the 4th respondent under the quota reserved for scheduled tribes.

She was appointed on the strength of the Community Certificate dated 10.7.1975 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Rehabilitation . Another

Community Certificate dated 18.7.1974 was also issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Madurai. The petitioner''s services were confirmed as Lower

Division Clerk in the year 1983. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Clerk . While so, on 15.6.1983, the Deputy

Tahsildar, Madurai called upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry with regard to the status of her community. During enquiry the petitioner also

examined witnesses. The petitioner''s father was originally employed as peon in the Health Inspector''s Office and subsequently, he joined in the

Police Department as Constable from 1.2.1939 . He retired as Head Constable . At the time of the petitioner''s father entering into the service of

the Police Department in the year 1939, the reservation policy was not in force. Only after 1950, SC/ST order was passed. The petitioner''s

brother Jayaragavel was also admitted in the Elementary School giving the name of the Community as Kattunaicken. The petitioner belongs to the

Kattunaicken community. While the petitioner was admitted in the School on 28.1.1960 by his father, the name of the Community was shown as

Kattunaicken in the school certificates. Even though all the certificates were produced before the enquiry officer , the first respondent without

disclosing the copy of the report of the second respondent, merely called upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry and thereafter passed the

impugned order, whereby he cancelled the Community Certificate issued already. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed to quash the

order of cancellation of Community certificate.

Counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent, in which it is stated that all the certificates produced by the respondents during the enquiry were

found to be altered and corrections were found. There is no entry in the school records to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Kattunaciken

community. Even in the S.R of the petitioner''s father the word ""Kattunaicken"" has been inserted. SSLC book does not reveal that she belongs to

Kattunaicken Community it only says `Yes'' against the caste column. Further the certificate book produced for verification is not signed by

anybody. Only in the first page of the SSLC book, the entries have been filled up and rest of the pages are left blank. A perusal of the certificate

dated 6.11.1974 issued by the Head Mistress shows that writ petitioner belongs to Hindu Naidu and within brackets Kattunaicken. But the

Headmistress on 25.6.1983 reported that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Kattunaicken Community. Therefore, the genuineness of the document

itself was doubtful. Further the Government in its letter dated has stated that on verification, if it is found that the Community Certificate issued is

false or whether the certificate was obtained by mis-representation, the District Collector should take action to cancel the community certificate

and before issuing the cancellation order the Collector should give an opportunity to the petitioner. In this case opportunities were given to the writ

petitioner and writ petitioner was enquired by the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Madurai. At the time of enquiry, the writ petitioner has not

given any objection and also not requested for any other records from this office. Only after considering all the records produced by the petitioner

and after observing the usual formalities, orders were passed by the Collector.

In cases of such nature, the Community certificate issued by the Tahsildar can be cancelled by the District Collector after conducting due

enquiry. In such circumstances all that required is that the person should be given adequate opportunity before cancellation of the Community

Certificate. That has been given in this case and that therefore there is no irregularity in the procedure adopted before the cancellation of the

Community Certificate. Therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and there is no case in the writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P is also dismissed. No costs.