K.Karthikeyan vs The State Level Scrutiny Committee & Ors.

This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 23 January 2015 on the file of Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, cancelling the

Schedule Tribe Community Certificate issued to the petitioner.

The petitioner obtained community certificate from the Taluk Office, Sankari, and secured employment in Air India against the post reserved for

Schedule Tribe. The certificate was cancelled by the District Collector, Salem. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition. The High Court remitted the

matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. The State Level Scrutiny Committee by order dated 2 November 2011 held

that the petitioner does not belong to Schedule Tribe. The order was challenged in W.P.No.25913 of 2011. The High Court by order dated 9

February 2012 set aside the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and directed fresh consideration.

It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and produced string of documents to prove his

community status. The Scrutiny Committee, without considering any of those documents, once again arrived at a conclusion that he does not

belong to schedule tribe. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

The State Level Scrutiny Committee, through its Deputy Secretary, filed a counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised by the petitioner

in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the respondent, the Vigilance Cell, conducted a fresh investigation and reported

that the petitioner does not belong to Schedule Tribe. The report was given to the petitioner and thereafter, the issue was considered. According to

the first respondent, none of the documents produced by the petitioner proved his claim that he belongs to Konda Reddy Community, which is

notified as a Schedule Tribe.

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner produced two sets of documents as per Annexure I and Annexure II.

Even though 57 documents were filed, the Scrutiny Committee has not considered even a single document before rejecting the claim made by the

petitioner. According to the learned Senior counsel, the Scrutiny Committee was not correct in ignoring the voluminous documents produced by

the petitioner. In short, it is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that in case those documents were considered, it would prove that the

petitioner belongs to schedule tribe.

We have also heard the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the learned counsel appearing for Air

India.

This Writ Petition has got a chequered history. The petitioner commenced his litigious journey immediately after securing employment. The High

Court, on two occasions, quashed the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee by order dated 2 November 2011,

rejected the claim made by the petitioner. The order was challenged in W.P.No.25913 of 2011. The High Court by order dated 9 February 2012,

set aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The State Level Scrutiny Committee followed the procedure indicated by the Supreme Court in Kumari Maduri Patil and anr. vs. Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors., 1994(6) SCC 241 and more particularly sub paragraph (6) and (7) of paragraph 13, dealing with

investigation by the Vigilance Cell. It is also a matter of record that a copy of the Vigilance report was also given to the petitioner to as to enable

him to file his response.

The only grievance of the petitioner appears to be the non consideration of the voluminous documents produced by him before the Scrutiny

Committee.

The petitioner produced 43 documents as per Annexure I and 14 documents as per Annexure II. The Scrutiny Committee was expected to

consider those documents one after another to decide the matter.

The order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and more particularly paragraph 15 shows the petitioner produced as many as 57

documents and it was received by the Committed on 5 November 2014. The Scrutiny Committee simply stated that documents were verified and

it arrived at a conclusion that the claim of the petitioner was not true. This is not the way in which the State Level Scrutiny Committee must

consider the claim for social status certificate.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court very clearly indicated the procedure to be followed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in Kumari Madhuri

Patil. There is no shortcut method in a matter of this nature. The Scrutiny Committee is bound to consider all the documents produced by the

petitioner. There should be a reference in the order with respect to each and every document. It is not as if one line order could be made saying

that the verification was made and the documents are not supportive of the claim made by the petitioner. Since the State Level Scrutiny Committee

failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner, necessarily, the impugned order must be set aside. However, we make it clear that

the reconsideration of the issue is necessitated only on account of the non consideration of the 57 documents produced by the petitioner. In short,

the direction is not to conduct a de novo enquiry, right from the beginning, including investigation by the Vigilance Cell. The enquiry should be

confined to the examination of documents produced by the petitioner as per Annexure I and Annexure II.

The State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to summon the petitioner on a particular day for considering the documents produced by him.

The petitioner should be given two weeks advance notice to appear before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the State

Level Scrutiny Committee on the prescribed date and explain each and every document and as to how it is relevant to decide the community

status. The State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to consider those documents and arrive at a finding. Such exercise shall be completed

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the limited extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are closed.