N. Kumarasami vs The Collector of Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram and another

The writ petitioner is challenging the order of the District Collector cancelling his community certificate showing him as a person belonging to

Kondakapu community. Few facts may be necessary to sustain the arguments of learned counsel for the writ petitioner. The petitioner joined the

services of the Postal Department on 10.6.1972 on the basis of a certificate produced by him showing him as a person belonging to Kondakapu

community. It also appears that there was an enquiry in the year 1981 it is not clear at whose instance, by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The

Revenue Divisional Officer is also stated to have sent a report to the District Collector. The District Collector is also stated to have sent a letter to

the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kancheepuram Division in whose jurisdiction the writ petitioner was employed stating that the writ petitioner

belongs to Kondakapu community.

While this being so, the District Collector/first respondent again initiated an enquiry into the very same issue about the community of the writ

petitioner. By notice dated 31.12.1993 sent to eight individuals including the writ petitioner, he was asked to appear on a particular day before him

to prove his case that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The writ petitioner by his reply dated 4.2.1994 brought to the notice of the District Collector

that already an enquiry had been conducted by the then District Collector which ended in favour of the writ petitioner and therefore no further

enquiry is necessary. Thereafter, the order dated 11.6.1994 cancelling the community certificate of the writ petitioner was passed by the District

Collector which is challenged in this writ petition.

Heard Mr. G.Desappan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. S.Gopinathan, learned Government Advocate for the State. ,

Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that inasmuch as the then District Collector had forwarded his letter in reference

No.Roc.196881 of 1981, dated 29.9.1991 to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kancheepuram Division intimating him that the writ petitioner

belongs to Kondakapu community, there is no question of conducting another enquiry on the very same issue. In support of his case that on an

earlier occasion, the then District Collector had gone into the issue and sent a letter in favour of the writ-petitioner, learned counsel relies upon the

letter dated 2.5.1988 sent by his employer to the writ petitioner wherein the writ petitioner was asked to send a copy of the order of the Collector

referred to earlier which was again followed by the letter dated 6.7.1988 from his employer drawing the petitioner''s attention to the earlier letter

and reminding him to send a copy of the Collector''s letter referred to earlier.

The Superintendent of Post Offices is made as the second respondent in this writ petition and in the counter -affidavit filed here, it is stated as

follows:-

... Earlier, during enquiry, the District Collector in his letter Mu.Mu.19688 of 1981 dated 29.9.1981 reported that the petitioner belonged to

Kondakapu community. Again the then District Collector in his letter No.Na.Ka.22520/83/J14,dated 2.12.1984 informed that a separate report

would be sent to this respondent department after verifying his earlier letter dated 29.9.81.

Even the District Collector in the order under challenge had referred to the statement of the writ petitioner about the earlier enquiry conducted by

the then District Collector and his letter dated 29.9.1981 and proceeded to say as follows:-

The disposal referred to above would have been destroyed due to efflux of time.

Therefore it is clear from the facts noticed above that there was an earlier enquiry on this issue by the then District Collector who held in favour of

the writ petitioner. The Collector nowhere states that such an enquiry was never held. The counter-affidavit of the Superintendent of Post Offices

filed before this Court shows that he had received such a letter.

A Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Sakthi Devi, S.P. v. The Collector of Salem, Salem etc., 1984 WLR 535 had stated as

follows:-

Appointing authorities have the right to verify the genuineness of the certificates by approaching the District Magistrate-Collector of the District or

such other constituted authority and once the report is received that the certificate is genuine, thereafter the certificate holder cannot be further

harassed to prove his caste/community in any other manner.

In view of the categorical-pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court referred to earlier and in view of the fact that an enquiry had been,

in fact, conducted earlier in respect of the community of the writ petitioner and it having ended in his favour, I am of the opinion that a second

enquiry is not definitely contemplated in law. There are no materials on record as to why the first enquiry report should be rejected. Accordingly,

the writ petitioner succeeds. The order under challenge is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.19449 of 1994 and 23608 of 1995 are closed.