N. Nirmala vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The petitioner appeared for an examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The

instructions issued to the candidates inter-alia contain the following instruction: ""In the case of an applicant who claims to be a member of the

Konda Reddis Community, the certificate should be obtained from a Revenue Divisional Officer or the Personal Assistant (General) to the District

Collector"".

The examination was conducted in the year 1989. Long prior to that year, the Government had on 23.3.1982, in G.O.Ms.No.1139, had

ordered that the power to issue community certificate in respect of Konda Reddy Community be vested with the Revenue Divisional Officer

instead of the Tahsildar in order to ensure care and caution in issuing the Certificate. That instruction had been reiterated on 3.1.1983 and in the

year 1989, the requirement that the Certificate be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer was extended to all other Scheduled Tribes.

The instructions issued by the Public Service Commission was fully in accordance with the policy of the Government with regard to the authority

competent to issue the Certificate. The petitioner has not challenged that condition, but took the examination subject to the requirement laid down

by the Commission.

The Commission made a mistake in permitting the petitioner to appear for the examination even though the applicant had not produced the

Certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and thereafter made a provisional appointment subject to the production of the requisite

Certificate. Though ample time was granted, the petitioner did not produce the Certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. She had

approached the Tribunal with the contention that the Commission had no right to require the production of such Certificate and that it was bound to

act on the Certificate which the Tahsildar had issued on 15.10.1977. The Tribunal having rejected that contention, the writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Kandasamy Vs. Chief Engineer,

Madras Port Trust, . The petitioner in that case was a Mazdoor in the Madras Port Trust who had relied on the Community Certificate dated

10.3.1987 issued by the Tahsildar. The action of the Port Trust in rejecting the Certificate on 20.11.1995 on the ground that he had failed to

produce ""latest original Community Certificate"" from the Revenue Divisional Officer, was held to be erroneous in law. The Court therein noticed

the G.O.Ms.2137 dated 11.11.1989 as also the letter of 3.4.1991 from the Joint Secretary to Government to the Collector, wherein it was

mentioned that the permanent Community Certificate issued to Scheduled Tribes by Tahsildars upto 11.11.1989 is valid.

In that case, there was no specific requirement, as in this case that the Certificate to be produced by the candidate, in case the candidate

belongs to Konda Reddy Community, should have been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Having regard to the very specific requirement

which has been laid down by the Public Service Commission, it was not open to the candidate to turn around after having appeared for the

examination and secured provisional appointment, and claim that that instruction should be ignored and that the Commission be compelled to act

on the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the year 1977.

We therefore do not see any merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. W.M.P.No.59790 of 2002 is also closed.

Counsel for the petitioner says that his client will secure the Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer within next four months and that till

that time, her position as Assistant in the Town and Country Planing Department of Govt. of Tamil Nadu at Trichy, need not be disturbed. We

consider that request to be reasonable provided she is still in service, and grant the petitioner four months'' time to produce the Certificate in view

of the fact that there was an order of stay in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal.