AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed against the order of the First Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee, by which the
Committee has given a finding that the Petitioner does not belong to ""Kurumans Community"", which is a Scheduled Tribe. The Writ Petitioner, who
has originally obtained a Community Certificate denoting her community as ""Kurumans Scheduled Tribe"" from the Sub-Collector, Saidapet,
Kancheepuram District on 28.12.1995, has applied to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for a Group-IV post in the year 2005. The
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission requested the District Collector, Kancheepuram to verify the genuineness of the said Community
Certificate. The matter was referred to the District Level Vigilance Committee, Kancheepuram, which, after conducting enquiry, by order dated
14.9.2007 has cancelled the Community Certificate issued by the Sub-Collector, Saidapet, Kancheepuram District.
2.1 Challenging the said order dated 14.9.2007, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 16914 of 2008. As per the direction
of this Court dated 17.7.2008, the First Respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee took up the matter and verified the genuineness of the
Community Certificate issued to the Petitioner as ""Kurumans Scheduled Tribe"". It was after conducting enquiry, the First Respondent has passed
an order on 8.9.2009 to the effect that the Petitioner does not belong to Kurumans Scheduled Tribe Community.
2.2. The order dated 8.9.2009 passed by the First Respondent was challenged by the Petitioner by filing W.P. No. 19656 of 2009. The main
ground of attack at that time was that one S. Sumathi, who was one of the members of the District Level Vigilance Committee, Kancheepuram
which has earlier rejected the claim of the Petitioner, has participated in the proceedings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee as an
Anthropologist and, therefore, a claim of bias was made, which came to be accepted by this Court in its order dated 4.8.2010. Accordingly, by
order dated 4.8.2010, this Court remanded the matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee with a direction to decide the matter afresh after
appointing another Anthropologist in the place of S. Sumathi.
2.3. It was as per the direction of this Court the State Level Scrutiny Committee has again taken up the matter and it appears that the Petitioner
was directed to appear for enquiry and one Dr. C.R. Sathiyanarayanan, Anthropologist was nominated as a Member of the State Level Scrutiny
Committee in the place of S. Sumathi. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 20.11.2010, the Committee has again rejected the claim of the
Petitioner holding that the xerox copies of the Transfer Certificate and Community Certificates issued to the Petitioner''s younger brother (S.
Vijayakumar) are not acceptable and there are no other vital documents produced by the Petitioner.
The impugned order is challenged mainly on the ground that even though it is stated under the impugned order that in the place of S. Sumathi,
one Dr. C.R. Sathiyanarayanan, Anthropologist was nominated as a Member of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the Committee has not
conducted a fresh enquiry as per the direction of this Court dated 4.8.2010 made in W.P. No. 19656 of 2009 and moreover, the Anthropologist
so nominated has never visited the place, nor conducted enquiry or filed a report, and at no point of time copy of such report has been served on
the Petitioner so as to enable her to substantiate her case.
It is relevant to point out at this stage that when the Petitioner approached the authorities under the Right to Information Act asking for the copy
of the Enquiry Report of the Anthropologist, she was informed by communication dated 11.1.2011 that since only an oral enquiry was conducted,
there was no question of issuing copy of the Enquiry Report. The said letter runs as follows:
When the Petitioner has asserted that such report has not been furnished to her and in the absence of any repudiation with acceptable records
on the side of the Respondents, it has to be taken that the Report of the Anthropologist has not been furnished to the Petitioner.
Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in the previous order dated 8.9.2009 passed by the State Level
Scrutiny Committee there has been a reference that as per the direction of the Committee, the Deputy Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department has, in fact, gone over to the Panchayat Union Primary School and verified the admission register pertaining to the Petitioner
personally and based on that the Committee found that communal status of the Petitioner as if she belongs to ""Kuruvan"" Backward Class
Community was changed as ""Kurumans"" Scheduled Tribe Community. As stated above, the order dated 8.9.2009 passed by the First
Respondent was already set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the First Respondent and we are only concerned about the
impugned order which is under challenge.
The learned Additional Government Pleader is not in a position to inform this Court as to whether Dr. C.R. Sathiyanarayanan, Anthropologist
has conducted independent enquiry about the communal status of the Petitioner and as to whether copy of such report has been served on the
Petitioner.
The conducting of enquiry about the communal status, especially relating to members of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, has been
explicitly explained by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, While
formulating the procedure to be followed in respect of issuance of such Community Certificate, especially relating to members of Scheduled Tribes
and Scheduled Castes, the Apex Court has made it very clear that the Government has to constitute Vigilance Cell in each District consisting of
Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claimed by the
parent, guardian or the candidate, and thereafter the Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect the facts of the social status claimed and
examine the parent, guardian or the candidate and submit a report to the Directorate with all particulars, especially relating to their peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. The
guidelines formulated by the Apex Court also make it abundantly clear that after receiving such report, the Directorate concerned should issue a
show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer to the candidate by Registered Post with Acknowledgment due and the
notice shall also indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in
no case, on request, not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice and it is only following such procedure the order has to be
passed. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the guidelines evolved by the Apex Court, it is relevant to extract the following paragraphs:
13... For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of Social Status Certificates, their scrutiny and their approval,
which may be the following:
1 to 4...
Each Directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of
Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which
the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance
Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be.
He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to
their caste, etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate
together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and
ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. by the castes or tribes or
tribal communities concerned, etc.
The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the Vigilance Officer if he found the claim for social status to be ""not genuine"" or
''doubtful'' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the
vigilance officer to the candidate by a Registered Post with Acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in
which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks
from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the
candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply
shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the
candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be
published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it.
After giving such opportunity either in person or through Counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the
claims vis-�-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
By applying the said yardstick to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation to hold that the procedure followed by the First
Respondent is a far cry from what has been evolved by the Apex Court. In the absence of any materials to show that the Vigilance Cell has
conducted enquiry about the anthropological and ethnological traits and various other customs and ceremonies concerning the particular
community, and in the absence of such report being placed at least before this Court or served on the Petitioner as per the direction of the Apex
Court, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order of the First Respondent stands set aside. No costs.
Consequently, M.P. No. l of 2011 is closed. Before parting with this case, we are saddened to notice that in spite of the category directions given
by the Apex Court that Vigilance Cell has to be constituted in each of the Districts with the officers who are empowered to investigate the social
status of the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to find out the peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,
customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. followed by the castes or tribes or tribal communities
concerned, etc., the authorities have not chosen to take any steps in this regard. In fact, the benefits to be given to the downtrodden community,
especially Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, which is a Constitutional guarantee, is sought to be streamlined in a proper manner by
investigative methodology and the same is really in the form of research and it is high time that the Government should take note of the same and
constitute Vigilance Cells with qualified personnel to decide about the communal status of the candidates so as to head off the repetition of such
sort of decisions given by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in a half-hearted manner.