Madras High Court
P.R.Kasilingam vs The State Level Scrutiny Committee on 7 July, 2023
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.No.12329 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order Reserved on : 20.06.2023
Order Pronounced on : 07.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P.No.12329 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.19088, 19094 and 12624 of 2019
P.R.Kasilingam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The State Level Scrutiny Committee
represented by its Chairman and Secretary
to the Government, Adi Dravidar
and Tribal Welfare Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Social Justice & Human Rights Division,
Madurai District.
3 The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai-600 014.
Page 1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12329 of 2019
4 Union of India,
Represented by Southern Railway,
Represented by the General Manager,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
(R3 impleaded vide order dated 24.06.2019 made in WMP.No.17172 of
2019 in WP.No.12329 of 2019 by RPSJ & CSNJ)
(R4 impleaded as per Court order dated 08.07.2019 made in
WMP.No.19088 of 2019 by RPSJ & CSNJ) ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
proceedings bearing No.10892/CVIII/2007, dated 29.03.2019 of the first
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner ... Mr.Karthik Lakshmanan
for M/s.AL.Ganthimathi
For R-1 &2 ... Mr.E.Vijay Anand
(Additional Government Pleader)
For R-3 ... Mr.V.Vijay shankar
For R-4 … Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
(Standing counsel)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the Page 2 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 records relating to the proceedings bearing No.10892/CVIII/2007, dated 29.03.2019 of the first respondent and quash the order passed therein, by issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction and pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the case of petitioner are as follows,
(i) According to the petitioner, he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community (Konda Reddis) and to that effect the Revenue authorities have issued community certificate dated 24.12.1976. The petitioner was appointed as apprentice Fire man in the Railway Department on 03.04.1978, based on the said community certificate. In the mean time, the Railway Department has sent the community certificate to the scrutiny committee and the same was pending for a long time. In the mean time, the petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2013. But the Southern Railways refused to disburse his terminal benefits except sanctioning provisional pension. Hence, he filed the Original Application in O.A.No.1461 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal to Page 3 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 disburse his terminal benefits and the same was allowed. But the employer of the Railway Department has challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.28396 of 2016 and the same is also pending. While, he was in service in the year 2007, based upon the third party complaints, his community certificate was sent for verification to the District Level Vigilance Committee and the said Committee has passed an adverse order.
(ii)Aggrieved by the same, he filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.4429 of 2007, before this Hon'ble Court and the same was disposed of in his favour and directed him to approach the first respondent i.e., State Level Scrutiny Committee and further directed the first respondent to complete the enquiry within four weeks. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, he has filed an application before the first respondent, State Level Scrutiny Committee on 01.09.2008. The first respondent summoned him for enquiry on 01.12.2014, after his date of superannuation. Thereafter, four different Deputy Superintendent of Police heading different vigilance cells, have conducted the vigilance enquiry and Page 4 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 submitted the report on 12.03.2018 without enquiring the petitioner. Based on the three different vigilance cells in the vigilance cell report , the first respondent had passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2019 by cancelling his community certificate.
(iii) Aggrieved by the said order, he has filed this Writ Petition alleging that in the vigilance report, there is a reference to one Mrs.Avudaiammal, who is none other than his own younger blood sister and her community was recorded as Reddiar based on the written statement of the Head Master, Panchayat Union Elementary School, P.Pudur dated 05.03.2018. When the Vigilance report states that his sister belongs to Reddiar, the impugned order states that she belongs to Chettiar. Likewise, in the impugned order, there is a reference about the report of Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, dated 29.11.2014. The said spot enquiry report pertains to enquiry of his mother, namely Mrs.Lakshmiammal. In fact, the RDO has not enquired his mother in person and she was examined by the second vigilance cell only on 21.06.2016 but the said deposition Page 5 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 was not considered in the impugned order. Further when he appeared for enquiry before the first respondent on 28.09.2018, he produced more than 50 documents, but the first respondent had indicated in the impugned order that he had filed only five documents. The first respondent has ignored the sale deeds in which, my caste mentioned as Konda reddi. While the facts are being so, the first respondent has rejected all such documents in a casual manner without adducing reasons for the rejection of each document relied upon by him. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent by cancelling the community is liable to be set aside.
3. The first respondent has filed the counter by alleging that the petitioner Thiru.P.R.Kasilingam, got the community certificate from the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Madurai as” Kondareddis” Scheduled Tribes community. Based on the said certificate, he got appointment in Southern Railway under the quota of Scheduled Tribe Community. Based on the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(MD).No.4429 of 2007, the State Level Scrutiny Committee has taken action to collect the original issuance record and Revenue Divisional Officer Report from the Page 6 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 District authorities. On receipt of the records, the Writ Petitioner was instructed to appear before the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 01.12.2014. The State Level Scrutiny Committee took up this case for verification, after examining the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, and on perusing the original records of Revenue Divisional Officer and the report of anthropologist the Committee, have rejected the individual community claim and cancelled the community certificate of Konda Reddi vide proceedings No.10892/CVIII/2007, dated 29.03.2019. The State Level Scrutiny Committee has examined the Vigilance cell report, copies of school records, copies of Land documents, report of Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, report of Anthropologist relating to the petitioner's Scheduled Tribes community claim. Taking into account the above said documents, the State Level Scrutiny Committee II unanimously came to a conclusion that the individual Thiru.P.R.Kasilingam, S/o.Thiru N.M.Ramasamy does not belong to the “Kondareddis” Scheduled Tribe Community and the Scheduled Tribes Community Certificate issued by the Head Quarter Deputy Tahsildar, Thirumangalam, Madurai District dated 15.12.1976, is not correct. Page 7 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 4(i). The fourth respondent has filed the counter denying the allegations of the petitioner stating that the petitioner was appointed in Railways on 03.04.1978 as Apprentice Fireman against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Konda Reddy) community based on the community certificate produced by the petitioner dated 24.12.1976 issued by the Thasildhar, Thiruamangalam. A complaint was received alleging that the petitioner got appointment in Railways by producing false community certificate as he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. Based on the complaint, a discreet preliminary enquiry was conducted through their vigilance department. In the School and college records of the petitioner obtained during the course of enquiry, it was found that community of the petitioner has been mentioned as “Kanjam Reddy” which belongs to Backward Caste. He has also obtained Backward Community Welfare Scholarship for his studies.
4(ii). Based on all the documents collected by the fourth respondent during the enquiry, a letter dated 02.05.2001 was addressed to the District Page 8 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 Collector, Madurai District, requesting him to verify the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe Community certificate issued by the Tahsildhar, Thirumangalam. The District Level Vigilance Committee issued show cause notice to the petitioner and conducted enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the District Level Vigilance Committee and produced the necessary documents.
4(iii). After conducting a detailed enquiry by scrutinizing the documents submitted by the petitioner and on perusing the reports submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti and report of the Anthropologist, the committee came to a conclusion that the petitioner do not belong to “Konda Reddy (Scheduled Tribe)” and gave a finding as he belongs to “Kanjam Reddy (Backward caste)”. By proceedings dated 25.04.2007, the District Level vigilance Committee cancelled the community certificate dated 24.12.1976 issued by the Tahsildhar, Thirumangalam in favour of the petitioner as “Konda Reddy (Scheduled Tribe)”.
Page 9 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 4(iv). In the mean while, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2013. In view of the verification of community certificate pending before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, by proceedings dated 19.09.2013, only provisional pension was sanctioned to the petitioner and other retirement benefits were kept pending outcome of community certificate verification by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
4(v). Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 19.09.2013 withholding the retirement benefits, the petitioner filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1461 of 2013. By order dated 09.03.2016, the learned Tribunal directed Railway Department to release the retirement benefits during the pendency of verification p rocess before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Against that order, the Railway Department filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.28396 of 2016. This Hon'ble High Court had granted interim stay of the order passed by the Tribunal. In that Writ Petition, State Level Scrutiny Committee have filed a status report by referring the proceedings dated 29.03.2019. The State Level Scrutiny Committee has carefully considered all the issues like report of Page 10 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Vigilance Cell, Madurai, and findings of the Anthropologist and came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy (Scheduled Tribe) and he belongs to Kanjam Reddy”. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.
6. Before going into the merits of the case, the contention of the petitioner that the registry has wrongly placed the matter before the Division Bench has to be answered. As per the petitioner, the Writ Petition challenging the State Level Scrutiny Committee has to be posted on the Single Bench and not before the Division Bench. For that he has filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.24559 of 2019 and the same was also disposed of by answering the petitioner's contention and the same was disposed of as early as on 06.11.2019. As per the judgement, “listing of cases before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench is the sole discretion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who is the Master of Roster. Intra- Page 11 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 Court Appeal is provided only under the Letters Patent and it is not available in all the Courts. This can be modified by the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Depending upon the nature of litigation and the subject, the matter is posted either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules also gives discretion to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post particular type of Writ Petitions either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench.” Therefore, the above said query raised by the petitioner was already answered by the Division Bench of this Court.
7. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Hindu Kondareddi (Scheduled Tribe) community and he joined in the Railways in the year 1978, based on the said community under the quota of Scheduled Tribes. This aspect has not been denied by the respondents. Based on the complaint of third parties, the case of petitioner's community certificate was referred to Vigilance cell and the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The State Level Scrutiny Committee had passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2019. The State Level Scrutiny committee has relied upon reports of Page 12 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Vigilance Cell Madurai and report of the Anthropologist and passed order by cancelling the community certificate on the ground that the petitioner is not belongs to Konda Reddy (Scheduled Tribes) Community. Further, on a careful perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that State Level Scrutiny Committee took up this case for verification and the matter was referred to Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Vigilance Cell Madurai region as per the guidelines in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumari Mathuri Patel Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development case and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, order dated 21.12.2015 in W.P.No.30368 and 31935 of 2015. As per the report of Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, he made spot enquiry and enquired the mother of the petitioner and she stated that she belongs to Kanjam reddi, there was no any such residence of Konda Reddi in their village. Further, Revenue Divisional Officer examined the other villagers, they also revealed the same that the petitioner and his forefathers are belongs to Kanjam Reddi community.
Page 13 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019
8. The report of Vigilance Cell also revealed that in the extract of School admission of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar Higher Secondary School, Walajabad, Kanchipuram District, the caste of Thiru P.R.Kasilingam s/o. N.M.Ramasamy was recorded as Chettiar Kanjam. The extract of admission register, Class-I admission issued by the Panchayat Union Elementary School, P.Pudur to the sister of petitioner namely Ayudaimmal, caste was mentioned as Chettiar. In this context, the the learned counsel for the respondent has argued before this court that there was a spelling mistake in the extract of school admission records instead of Reddiyar it was mentioned as Chettiar. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondent has brought the attention of this Court by producing the school documents in the typed set wherein, the community was mentioned as Reddiyar not Chettiar. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that there was a spelling mistake as Chettiar instead of Reddiyar is acceptable one. Further from the typed set of papers, it appears from the records that the petitioner during his studies, he got his scholarship as backward class whereas joined durty as Konda Reddy (Scheduled Tribes). Further, the Page 14 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 Tahsildar Perayur, in his report addressed to the DSP has stated that the father of the petitioner belongs to Reddi Kanjam. The petitioner/Kasilingam, also belongs to Hindu Reddi Kanjam, none of the Konda Reddi community are residing in the locality.
9. Therefore, as per the Revenue records and the report of the RDO and Vigilance Cell, the petitioner does not belongs to Konda Reddi (Scheduled Tribes). Further the committee has taken into account of the documents filed by the petitioner also. The petitioner has produced the sale deeds. In the said sale deeds, their caste Konda Reddi is found in some records. In some records, the caste mentioned as Reddi. It is well settled law that the mere entries made in the sale deeds are not sufficient to prove the community of the individual. But at per the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Mathuri patel's case, the Anthropologist report also filed by the concerned authorities and the same was also referred by the Committee. Even according to the Anthropologist report, the petitioner does not belongs to Konda reddi community and he belongs to Reddiyar community. Therefore, the Committee after scrutinizing all the documents Page 15 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 fairly and unanimously came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe Community and thereby, passed order through proceedings dated 29.11.2019 in accordance with law. The State Level Scrutiny Committee has looked into the documents of the petitioner and discussed in the order. The Competent and Statutory authority to scrutinize the Community Certificate is the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the said Committee passed order after hearing the petitioner and examining the statement of witnesses and other documents. There is no allegation of bias and other procedural lapses as against the order of the Committee. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent Committee is in accordance with law. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the first respondent. Therefore, as discussed supra, the present Writ Petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
10.Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Page 16 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 (D.K.K.J) (P.D.B.J) 07.07.2023 Index: Yes Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mpa To 1 The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai – 104. 2 The State Level Scrutiny Committee represented by its Chairman and Secretary to the Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice & Human Rights Division, Madurai District. 4 The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Page 17 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 Chennai-600 014. 5 Union of India, Represented by Southern Railway, Represented by the General Manager, Park Town, Chennai-600 003. Page 18 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12329 of 2019 D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J. and P.DHANABAL,J. mpa Pre-delivery Order in W.P.No.12329 of 2019 07.07.2023 Page 19 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis