Selvi M. Shyamala vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee

S. Tamilvanan, J.—This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of writ

of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 27.02.2004, made in Proceeding No. 27645/ADW II/2003

and quash the same.

The writ petitioner herein was the appellant before the Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent herein. It is seen that the

community certificate issued by the Thasildar, Polur Taluk vide No. 1363595, dated 01.09.1998, stating that she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar

Community of Scheduled Caste, was cancelled by the District Level Vigilance Committee, Tirvannamalai. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed

an appeal before the Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, Chennai, constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein.

As per the order dated 27.02.2004, in proceeding No. 27645/ADW II/03, the Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, held that the petitioner

herein is not entitled to claim the communal status of Schedule Caste and accordingly, her claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the order dated

27.02.2004, passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner herein has preferred this writ petition.

According to the petitioner, her father and paternal grand father originally belonged to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Schedule Caste. Her

paternal grand father got converted to Christianity, however, her father and grand father were living only with Hindu Adi Dravidar people in a

remote undeveloped village called Anilady, wherein most of the inhabitants are Hindu Adi Dravidar Community people and about twenty years ago

her father migrated from the said village to Polur Taluk of Chengalpattu District for survival and better prospects of life. The mother of the

petitioner belongs to Hindu Vysya Chettiyar Community of Backward Class and they follow only Hindu Customs and worship Hindu Gods.

According to the petitioner, her brother Praveen, Sister Shalini and her mother were practising only Hindu customs and worshipping, Hindu Gods,

though her father was practising Christianity. Subsequently, her father re-converted to Hinduism, for which he underwent ''Shuddhi ceremony'' and

became a Hindu under auspices of Arya Samaj on 01.12.1996, for which, Arya Samaj gave him a certificate of conversion into Hinduism.

According to her, after conversion into Hinduism her father continued to be Hindu Adi Dravidar and the same has been accepted by the people of

Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of the village, for which she has produced supporting documents obtained from the village President of Anilady

and Hindu Adi Dravidar community people of the said village, which is not in dispute in this writ petition.

According to the petitioner, her father after re-conversion to Hinduism, belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Scheduled Caste. Her

father changed his name from T.Mari Bernard to T.Mani Balan, after re-conversion to Hinduism, when the petitioner was studying VIII standard.

Then, he applied for community certificate and the Tahsildar, Polur Taluk issued community certificate dated 24.08.1998, after due enquiry, that he

belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Schedule Caste. The petitioner has further stated in her affidavit that even as per the school records

of her father, his caste is stated only as Harijan (Adi Dravidar) and he was all along living only with his Adi Dravidar Community people. Having

passed Higher Secondary examination, the writ petitioner applied for M.B.B.S. Course in the Chengalpattu Medical College, as a candidate

belonging to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community, submitting all the records relating to her caste. Having been satisfied with the records produced by

her, the fourth respondent admitted her in Chengalpattu Medical College for the four year M.B.B.S. Course in July 1999, under ''Scheduled

Caste"" quota.

According to the petitioner, the second respondent, by proceedings dated 10.10.2002, called upon the petitioner to appear before the District

Vigilance Committee for enquiry, in order to verify the genuineness of the community certificate issued in her favour by Tahsildar, Polur Taluk. The

petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 28.10.2002, for the enquiry and submitted all the relevant records, in support of her claim

that she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Scheduled Caste. However, by proceedings dated 21.05.2003, the second respondent

held that the Community Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was not valid in law and accordingly, cancelled the Community Certificate,

that had been issued by Tahsildar, Polur Taluk, on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, by letter dated 03.04.2002, had

informed the second respondent that the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was not a genuine certificate. According to the

petitioner, she was not informed of the letter dated 03.04.2002 written by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, nor she was given any

copy of the said letter. No reasonable opportunity was given to her to confront the contents of the letter dated 03.04.2002, issued by the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai. According to the petitioner, as per law, she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Schedule caste and

that the proceeding, dated 27.02.2004 of Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent herein, confirming the order of the District

Level Committee is against law and on that ground, she has sought for an order in the nature of writ of certiorari and quash the impugned

proceeding and to pass such order or orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Vijay Narain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner''s paternal grand father and father belonged

to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Schedule Caste. However, her paternal grand father got converted to Christianity, but as persons belonging

to Adi Dravidar Community, they were living only with the said community people. Subsequently, the petitioner''s father married the mother of the

petitioner, who belongs to Hindu Vysya Chettiar Community of Backward Class and practising only Hindu customs and they are living only with

Hindu Adi Dravidar Community people. Therefore, the father of the petitioner re-converted to Hinduism, while the petitioner was a minor, studying

VIII standard, for which he underwent ''Suddhi ceremony'' and became a Hindu, under the auspicious of Arya Samaj on 01.12.1996 and that the

Arya Samaj (Central), Chennai issued a certificate on 01.12.1996 stating that the father of the petitioner converted himself to Hinduism from

Christianity.

Mr. K.Bala Subramaniam, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the father of the petitioner was only

a born Christian of Adi Dravidar Community and therefore, he could not be recognised as a person belongs to Schedule Caste, even after his

conversion to Hinduism. According to him, merely because, the father of the petitioner was converted to Hinduism, the petitioner is not eligible to

claim the communal status of Schedule Caste and further, the mother of the petitioner belongs to Hindu Vysya Chettiyar Community which is

recognised only as the Backward Class, in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the status of schedule caste. According to the

learned Counsel for the respondents, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 27.02.2004 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee,

the first respondent herein, in confirming the order passed by the District Level Committee by the impugned order, dated 21.05.2003.

Per contra, Mr. Vijay Narain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that as per law, the petitioner is

entitled to claim the status of Schedule Caste after re-conversion of her father to Hinduism, since he originally belonged to Hindu Adi Dravidar

Community of Scheduled Caste. The learned Senior Counsel relying on the decision of this Court, N.S. Ziauddeen v. S. Ashok Kumar, Principal

Sessions Judge, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 and three Ors. reported in 2002(2) CTC 257 and R. Shankar v. The Registrar General, High Court,

Madras reported in 2007 Writ L.R. 863, submitted that though the petitioner was born to christian father, originally he was Hindu Adi Dravidar,

converted to christianity and subsequently, renounced christianity and re-converted to Hinduism, as his re-conversion to Hinduism was accepted

and recognised by Hindu Adi Dravidar community people. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that after re-conversion to Hinduism, both the

petitioner and her father are entitled to the rights and benefits available to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Scheduled Caste people. In the

decision referred to above reported in 2007 Writ L.R. 863 (cited supra), the Division Bench of this Court headed by one of us (Hon''ble Mr.

Justice Elipe Dharma Rao), it has been held as follows:

14...A careful reading of the reports of the District Collector as well as the Tahsildar would clearly show that the petitioner reconverted to

Hinduism in 1983, his name was changed from Charles to Sankar and a certificate to that effect was given by Hindu Mission. The question

involved in the present case is whether a person, whose ancestors belonged to a scheduled caste before conversion to Christianity can, on

conversion or re-conversion to Hinduism, be regarded as a member of the scheduled caste and as to whether the caste certificate issued to the

petitioner is genuine or not....

In the decision reported in 2002 (2) CTC 257 (cited supra), another Bench of this Hon''ble High Court, considering the decisions in Kumari

Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development 1994 AIR SCW 4116 ; Mrs. Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University and others,

and S. Swvigaradoss Vs. Zonal Manager, F.C.I., , has held that the first respondent in the aforesaid writ petition, who was born to Christian

parents, originally belonged to Hindu Pallar Community of Scheduled Caste, is entitled to claim the status of Scheduled Caste, after his re-

conversion to Hinduism and having been accepted by the said community people.

The Constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in The Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and Others Vs. Y. Mohan Rao, ,

has laid down ratio decidendi, that a person whose parents or grand parents, originally belonged to a scheduled caste before their conversion to

Christianity can, on re-conversion to Hinduism, be regarded as a member of the scheduled caste, only if he is accepted as a member of that caste

by the other members of the caste. Therefore, it is clear that on conversion to Hinduism, a person born to Christian converts cannot become a

member of the caste to which his parents belonged, prior to their conversion to christianity, automatically or as a matter of course, since it depends

on the acceptance of the other people of the community. In the said decision, it has been further held that Mr. Mohan Rao born to parents

belonging to ""Madiga"" caste, which is a recognised scheduled caste in the State of Andhra Pradesh, however, both his parents converted to

Christianity, later on Mr. Mohan Rao re-converted to Hinduism. Though he was born to christian parents of Madiga caste, his conversion to

Hinduism was treated only as re-conversion and as his re-conversion to Hinduism was accepted by the people of Hindu Madiga community, held

that he was entitled to claim the community status. In the said Judgement, in paragraph 7, it is stated as follows:

...It is for the members of the caste to decide whether or not to admit a person within the caste. Since the caste is a social combination of

persons governed by its rules and regulations, it may, if it rules and regulations so provide, admit a new member just as it may expel an existing

member. The only requirement for admission of a person as a member of the caste is the acceptance of the person by the other members of the

caste, for as pointed out by Krishnaswami Ayyanagar, J. In Goona Durgaprasada Rao alias Pedda Babu and Another Vs. Goona

Sudarsanaswami and Others, , ""in matters affecting the well being or composition of a caste, the caste itself is the supreme judge'' (emphasis

supplied). It will, therefore, be seen that on conversion to Hinduism, a person born of Christian converts would not become a member of the caste

to which his parents belonged prior to their conversion to Christianity, automatically or as a matter of course, but he would become such member,

if the other members of the caste accept him as a member and admit him within the fold.

In Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case 1994 AIR SCW 116, though the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines and directions to

form Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificates, whenever dispute arises in this regard, the said case is not relating to the issue of

re-conversion, which is the issue on hand. In the instant case, the question involved is whether the petitioner herein, whose ancestors belonged to

scheduled caste before conversion to Christianity, could claim the status of Scheduled Caste, on conversion or re-conversion to Hinduism as a

member of the scheduled caste or not.

In the instant case, apart from the averments, there was a declaration by the father of the petitioner that by birth and custom, he belongs to Adi

Dravidar Community. Even after conversion to Christianity, his parents were residing with the said community people, after his re-conversion to

Hinduism, the same was accepted by the people of Hindu Adi Dravidar Community, for which he has produced supporting documents, the

Certificate obtained from Village Panchayat President, Anilady and from the people of Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of the said village, which is

not in dispute.

In the impugned order, the Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, rejected the request made by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed

by the District Level Committee mainly because the petitioner''s father was born to Christian parents. The learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents has also placed his arguments mainly on that basis, that it cannot be construed as re-conversion to Hinduism.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, drew the attention of this Court to the Secondary School Level Certificate of the

petitioner''s father. It is seen that the said certificate is dated 06.04.1970, wherein the following details are given.

Name of the pupil (in full) : T.Mani Bernad

(i) Nationality : Indian

(ii) Religion : R.C.

(iii) Community : (Say Yes or No)

Whether

Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe or

Most Backward Class or

Convert to Christianity from

Scheduled Caste. : Yes, Harijan

On the date of the S.S.L.C Certificate, the petitioner''s father was only a minor, aged 16 years, however, it is made clear that even in his

S.S.L.C. Book, dated 06.04.1970, prepared by the School Authority, nearly 26 years prior to his conversion to Hinduism, he was stated only as

a Convert to Christianity from Scheduled Caste and further, stated that he was Harijan, otherwise known as Scheduled Caste. As per the

certificate issued by the Arya Samaj (Central) Madras on 01.12.1996, the petitioner''s father T.Mari Bernard, changed his name as T.Mani Balan,

underwent ''Suddhi Ceremony'' and was converted to Hinduism, for which certificate of conversion to Hinduism was issued by Arya Samaj. After

conversion, he had published a private news in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part IV Section 4 that he converted from Christianity to

Hinduism and also changed his name as T.Mani Balan instead of T.Mari Bernard.

It is a fact that one can change his religion, by way of conversion, but cannot change his caste. Hence, it is not in dispute that the petitioner''s

father belongs to Adi Dravidar Community by birth, though their parents changed their religion by conversion and in turn, he converted himself to

Hinduism, as per recognised procedure, therefore, it could be construed legally a re-conversion.

In the light of the decisions referred to above, it is clear that the petitioner''s father was only a convert to Christianity from Scheduled Caste, as

per his S.S.L.C Book, dated 06.04.1970, which is not in dispute in this writ petition. It has been established that the petitioner''s father was born

to Christian parents, who were originally Hindus, belonged to Scheduled Caste, since the paternal grand parents were Hindus, the conversion of

the father of the petitioner is only re-conversion to Hinduism. In this case, he was re-converted to Hinduism on 01.12.1996, after undergoing

''Suddhi Ceremony'' by Arya Samaj, (Central) Madras. He has also intimated his re-conversion to Hinduism, by way of private news published in

the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The Certificates obtained by the petitioner''s father from the Village Panchayat President, Anilady and the

statement signed by the community people of Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Anilady village, would clearly show that the other members of the

caste have accepted him as a member of their community within their fold. After due enquiry, Tahsildar, Polur Taluk had issued Regular

Community Certificate dated 24.08.1998 in the proper format, stating that T.Mani Balan, father of the petitioner herein belongs to Hindu Adi

Dravidar Community of Scheduled Caste, as per the SC & ST Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. The material available on record shows that the

Tahsildar, has issued the said community certificate properly after making due enquiry, according to law, and which is valid in law, in the light of the

various decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court.

Based on the community status, it is seen that the petitioner, M.Shyamala, daughter of T.Mani Balan is stated as Hindu Adi Dravidar

Community of Scheduled Caste, in her Transfer Certificate, dated 31.05.1999 issued by the Mt.St. Joseph Matric Higher Secondary School,

Tiruvannamalai and the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai has also given community certificate to the petitioner, Shyamala, daughter of T.Mani Balan as

Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Scheduled caste. As the petitioner''s father is entitled to the status of Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of

Scheduled Caste, after re-conversion to Hinduism, being his daughter, the petitioner is entitled to claim the same community status, it is no way a

bar on the ground that her mother belongs to Hindu Vysya Chettiyar caste of Backward Class, when there is a declaration that she was brought

up, as per the custom of her father''s community.

In the light of the various decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court referred to above, we are of the considered view that the

following are basic requirements needed for claiming the status of Scheduled Caste on the ground of re-conversion:

The person claiming the status of Scheduled Caste on the re-conversion must have born to the parents, who had been Scheduled Caste, prior to

their conversion and the re-conversion should be accepted by other members of the said community.

Even a person born to Christian parents can claim the status, after re-conversion to Hinduism, provided, by establishing the fact that his grand

parents belong to Scheduled Caste and lost the status, only due to their conversion to other religion and the re-conversion is accepted by the other

members of the community, as member in their fold.

As per law, one can change his religion, by conversion or re-conversion, but cannot change his community, by way of conversion.

In order to claim the status of Scheduled Caste, by re-conversion to Hinduism or Sikh religion, it is mandatory that at the relevant time, the said

re-conversion should have been accepted by the other members of the caste within their fold.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in the light of the various decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court, we are of

the view that the writ petitioner is entitled to claim social status as Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Scheduled Caste. However, the legal aspects

were not properly considered in the impugned order passed by the first respondent, in the proper perspective and therefore, the writ petition has to

be allowed and the impugned order, dated 27.02.2004 passed by the first respondent and the earlier order passed by the second respondent,

cancelling the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner are liable to be set aside.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 27.02.2004 passed by the first respondent and the earlier order

passed by the second respondent, cancelling the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner are set aside. It is made

clear that the petitioner is entitled to claim the status of Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Scheduled Caste for all purposes. However, there is no

order as to costs.