R. Mekala Praksh vs The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee/Secretary to Government Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, The District Level Caste Vigilance Committee and The Assistant General Manager Staff Administration Section

D. Murugesan, J.—This Writ Petition raises a question which frequently comes before this Court for consideration. The Hon''ble Apex

Court in the Judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, , has directed all the States

to constitute a Committee consisting of three members to go into the genuiness of the Community Certificates relating to Scheduled Caste and

Schedule Tribe.

Even before such Committees were constituted with the composition of three members, the Government of Tamil Nadu directed the constitution

of the Committees at the District Level consisting of two members. Those committees at the District Level considered the genuiness of the

Community Certificates and pass orders either affirming or cancelling those certificates. Whenever the orders passed by the District Level

Committee consisting of two members are questioned before this Court, those orders were quashed on the ground that they were passed by the

Committees with the composition of two members and the constitution of the committee was infarction of the law laid down by the Apex Court. In

some cases, when the order passed by the District Level Committee with the constitution of two members was questioned before the State Level

Committee and the State Level Committee in the capacity of Appellate Authority confirms that order and such orders were questioned before this

Court on the ground that inasmuch as the order passed by the District Level Committee with the constitution of two members was invalid abinitio

and such defects could not have been cured by taking the matter in appeal to the State Level Committee. With such view, this Court had interfered

in such orders.

This Writ Petition raises one such issue. The petitioner was issued with a Community Certificate on 22.9.1965 by the Headquarters Deputy

Tahsildar, Bhavani, certifying himself to be belonging to Konda Reddy community which is notified as Scheduled Tribe community. On the strength

of the said certificate, he secured employment with the Canara Bank as against the vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Thereafter the

genuiness of the said certificate was sought to be verified and the District Level Committee, admittedly with the composition of two members

cancelled the said certificate by an order dated 28.7.2000. That order was carried on to appeal to the State Level Committee, of course at the

instance of the petitioner himself and the State Level Committee by an order dated 29.4.2002, confirmed the order of the District Level

Committee. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by raising a similar contention namely inasmuch as the order of the

District Level Committee was without any jurisdiction, the confirmation of such order also would be without jurisdiction.

Of course the issues relating to the social status certificate, their scrutiny, approval and the procedures were laid down by the Apex Court in

Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Commissioner, tribal development reported in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner,

Tribal Development and others, , wherein in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4, the Hon''ble Supreme Court issued the following directions:

Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking

admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.

All the State Government shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank

of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/ Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be and

(III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificate. In

the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates.

In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, part of or

groups of tribes or tribal communities.

From the above directions, it could be seen that the Hon''ble Supreme Court had directed the State Government to constitute only one

Committee with the constitution of three members. However the State Government constituted two committees, one in the state level and another

at each district level. Such District Level Committee also should consist of three members. The committee of three members has a definite purpose

since it should also have an anthropologist as one of the members who has intimate knowledge in social status. In so far as Scheduled Tribe

candidates are concerned, a Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribal communities, part of or groups of tribes or tribal

communities.

A similar challenge to an order passed by the District Level Committee without proper constitution which was confirmed by the State Level

Committee came up for consideration before the Hon''ble Apex Court in G.M. Indian bank v. R. Rani and Anr. reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 125

(SC) and in paragraph No. 8, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

So far as the second submission is concerned, we are of the view that as the constitution of the District Level Committee was in infarction of law

laid down by this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commr. Tribal Development, Thane and Ors. (supra), the defect

could not have been cured by taking the matter in appeal to the State Level Committee. This being the position, we are of the view that the High

Court was quite justified in quashing the orders passed by District Level Committee, State Level Committee and the orders of termination.

Following the said Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment reported in (2008) 6 MLJ 807 K. Gurusamy v. Tamil Nadu

State Scrutiny Committee, Adi. Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and Ors. has also held that the order of the State Level

Committee affirming the order of the District Level Committee cannot be sustained as the constitution of the District Level Committee was not in

accordance with the Judgment of the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil''s case referred supra. This Judgment was followed by another Division Bench

of this Court in W.P. No. 16491 of 2001 dated 19.08.2009.

In view of the above, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside.

In view of the setting aside of both the impugned orders, it is open to the State Level Committee being an authority to consider the genuiness of

the Community Certificate in question to verify the same and pass appropriate orders. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three

months from today. The petitioner shall also co-operate with the enquiry.

The Writ Petition is allowed with the above observation. No costs.