S. Govindarajan vs The District Community Certificate Verification Scrutiny Committee

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner filed O.A. No. 2469 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order

dated 28.03.2001 passed by the 3rd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi and sought for further direction to continue as

Village Administrative Officer of Irrukkanthurai, Part I, Radhapuram Taluk.

By the impugned order, the petitioner''s services were terminated on the ground that the District Vigilance Committee presided by the Chairman,

District Collector, Tiruvannamalai found that the community certificate produced by him showing that he belong to Sholaga, a scheduled tribe was

not valid and the certificate given by Tahsildar, Nanguneri dated 16.06.1981 was false. In view of the finding given by the District Vigilance

Committee, the petitioner''s appointment was terminated.

The Tribunal, while admitting the original application, granted an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order. Subsequently, the

interim order came to be extended until further orders. On notice from the Tribunal, the District Collector has filed a reply affidavit dated

27.07.2001.

In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P. No. 2252 of 2007.

In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner''s community certificate was sent for verification by the Community Certificate Verification and

Vigilance Committee. The State Committee conducted an enquiry on 18.12.2000, 22.01.2001, 26.02.2001 and 27.03.2001. The petitioner did

not attend the enquiry and avoided the same on some flimsy ground. Finally, after several adjournments, the petitioner was asked to appear on

27.03.2001 by sending the notice by registered post. The petitioner did not appear and do not offer any explanation. Thereafter, the Committee

examined and perused the connected records and found that he did not belong to Sholaga community which is included in the list of Scheduled

Tribes community. It is only because the Committee has also cancelled the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nanguneri dated 16.06.1981, the

petitioner could not be allowed to hold the post on the basis that he was a scheduled tribe. Reliance was also placed upon the Judgment of the

Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, , wherein the Supreme Court has

held that when scrutiny committee scrutinises comes to the conclusion that the certificate obtained was a false certificate, then there is no question

of retaining a Government servant on the basis of the false certificate. Mere fact that the petitioner continued in employment on the basis of an

interim order passed by the Tribunal will not help the case of the petitioner.

The Supreme Court recently vide its Judgment in Additional General Manager/Human Resource Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Suresh

Ramkrishna Burde, , has held as follows:

In Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar the employee had got an appointment on 15-10-1976 on a post which was reserved for a member

of Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate on 18-7-1987 which was challenged by the employee. After several

rounds of litigation his services were terminated on 28-2-2002. After referring to the decision in Milind1 and some other decisions, this Court

allowed the appeal of the employer affirming the order of termination of service of the employee. Para 6 of the Report where the principle was laid

down reads as under: (SCC p. 697)

Respondent 1 employee obtained appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. When the clear finding of the

Scrutiny Committee is that he did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe, the very foundation of his appointment collapses and his appointment is no

appointment in the eye of the law. There is absolutely no justification for his claim in respect of the post he usurped, as the same was meant for a

reserved candidate

In the case in hand the respondent got appointment on 31-5-1982 on a post, which was reserved for a member of Scheduled Tribe. On

receiving complaints the employer referred the matter to the District Collector, Nagpur and also to the Scrutiny Committee in March 1991. The

subsequent period has been spent in making enquiry and in litigation as the respondent filed three writ petitions. In view of the principle laid down

by this Court we are clearly of the opinion that his services were rightly terminated by the appellant and the High Court was in error in directing his

reinstatement. The order passed by the High Court, therefore, has to be set aside.

In the light of the same, the writ petition stand dismissed. No costs.