Madras High Court
K. Kaveri vs State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee on 2 November, 2010
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: R.Banumathi, B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.11.2010 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P. No. 15826 of 2006 K. Kaveri .. Petitioner Versus State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee rep. by its Chairman and Secretary to Government Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department Secretariat Chennai 600 009 .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the cancellation of the community certificate of the petitioner made in proceedings No. 9699/ADW II/2003, dated 12.04.2006 on the file of the respondent, quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Doraisamy For Respondent : Mr. M. Dhandapani Special Government Pleader ORDER
B. RAJENDRAN, J The petitioner claims that he belonged to 'Kuruman' Community which is recognised as a Schedule Tribe. The petitioner would contend that he was issued with a certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri on 26.07.1996 certifying that he belonged to 'Kuruman' community. According to the petitioner, such a certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri after conducting proper enquiry. After getting the community certificate, the petitioner registered his name with the District Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri for a suitable job. The District Employment Officer in turn has forwarded the community certificate produced by the petitioner to the District Collector, Dharmapuri to verify its genuineness. The District Collector, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 60034/98 (F1) dated 20.08.1999 referred the community certificate of the petitioner for further verification and enquiry to the Sub-Collector, Dharmapuri. The Sub-Collector, after verification and enquiry sent a report to the District Collector by his proceedings dated 26.01.2000 stating that the petitioner belonged to 'Kuruman' Community which is classified as a schedule Tribe community. Even after such report dated 26.01.2000 of the Sub-Collector, Dharmapuri, the District Collector did not pass any order. However, after lapse of five years from the date of report of the Sub-Collector, Dharmapuri, the respondent namely State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee had sent a notice to the petitioner on 19.09.2005 calling upon him to appear before the committee for an enquiry. The petitioner also appeared before the committee on 12.12.2005 and produced documents namely photographs and material objects. The committee also tested the petitioner's language regarding 'Kannada'.
2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, without referring to any documents or without rendering any findings regarding the documents submitted by the petitioner, passed a final order on 12.04.2006 cancelling the community certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 26.07.1996 in his favour. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition mainly on the ground that the committee did not rely on the report of the Sub-Collector and also the documents produced by him. According to the petitioner, the word 'Kurumban' with that of the words 'Kurumba' and 'Kurumar' are misspelt by the respondent with the result, the community certificate issued in his favour was erroneously cancelled by the respondent.
3. The respondent has filed a detailed counter. The respondent would contend that the petitioner in his school certificate had stated that he belonged to 'Kurumba' community, which is classified as most back ward class, whereas, the petitoner claimed to belonged to 'Kuruman' community based on the community certificate issued in his favour by the Revenue Divisional Officer. When the petitioner registered his name with the employment exchange, his certificate was forwarded to the District Collector to ascertain its genuineness and the District Collector in turn directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri for necessary enquiry and to submit his report, who is the field level competent authority in this regard. On receipt of the field report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the same was furnished to the petitioner by the District Collector, Dharmapuri by his letter No.60034/98 dated 18.05.2001 for offering his remarks. On receipt of the report, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 19.06.2001 stating that he belonged to 'Kuruman' community and he had obtained a community certificate to that effect on 26.07.1996. But in the school record, it was mentioned as 'Kurumba' which according to the petitioner is the local term of the community 'Kuruman'. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his further representation on 18.03.2002 reiterating the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear before the District Level Vigilance Committed on 10.06.2002, but instead of attending the enquiry, he sought time by two months by his letter dated 06.06.2002. Again, the petitioner was asked to appear for an enquiry on17.02.2003 and10.03.2003, but he did not appear before the District Level Vigilance Committee headed by the District Collector, Dharmapuri. However, by letter dated 10.03.2003, the petitioner requested further six months time for producing documents. In the meanwhile, since the jurisdiction conferred on the District Level Committee was taken away, the matter was referred to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committe by the District Collector on 01.04.2006.
4. The respondent would further contend that the petitioner appeared before the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee on 12.12.2005 but did not produce any documents during the personal hearing except a photograph. The Committee therefore granted 10 days time to enable the petitioner to produce additional documents, but he did not produce any additional documentary evidence. Thereafter, on examination of the records, report of the Revenue District Collector, Dharmapuri as well as the District Collector, Dharmapuri and the supporting documents filed by the petitioner i.e., the photograph, the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee concluded that the petitioner belonged to 'Kurumba' community and therefore cancelled the community certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri in favour of the petitioner on 12.04.2006. The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee also conducted enquiry as per the direction issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and another, AIR 1995 SC 94, therefore, the order passed by the committee is valid and in accordance with law. During the course of enquiry.it was also found that earlier, the Deputy Tahsildar, Harur had issued a community certificate to the petitioner on 29.06.1977 to the effect that he belongs to 'Kurumba' community, which is classified as a Most Backward Class. The petitioner has actually suppressed the earlier community certificate issued in his favour by the Deputy Tahsildar, Harur on 29.06.1977 certifying that he belonged to 'Kurumba' community. Further, even before the District Collector, when the petitioner was asked to appear, he did not appear but only sought time for production of documents and he dragged the matter.
5. The respondent would further contend that the constitution of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee includes Anthropologist also, hence, the order passed by the committee is valid. Merely because the petitioner has been expressing the life style of the Schedule Tribe people, the petitioner cannot be considered as a person belonging to Schedule Tribe community. In fact, only on seeing the variations in the communal status of the petitioner, both in the school certificate as well as the community certificate, the District Employment Officer has referred the matter to the District Collector to ascertain the genuineness of the community certificate. Therefore, it is not a case where the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the petitioner was verified suo motu but based on certain doubts entertained by the District Employment Officer. In any event, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to purforth his case. Therefore, the order passed by the committee is per se valid and legal.
6. We have heard both sides. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit of the respondent, it is seen that the certificate produced by the petitioner in the employment exchange was forwarded to the District Collector to ascertain its genuineness. On receipt of the same, the District Collector originally directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry and submit his report. The Revenue Divisional Officer also submitted his report and it was also communicated to the petitioner as early as on 18.05.2001 and his further remarks on the report was sought for. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear before the District Level Vigilance Committe on 10.06.2002, but without attending the enquiry, he sought time by two months by his letter dated 06.06.2002. Again, the petitioner was asked to appear for an enquiry on 17.02.2003 and 10.03.2003, but he did not appear, however, by letter dated 10.03.2003, the petitioner requested further time of six months. In the meanwhile, since the jurisdiction conferred on the District Level Committee was taken, the matter was referred to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committed by the District Collector on 01.04.2005. Therefore, the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, which also includes an Anthropologist, issued a notice to the petitioner for personal enquriy on 12.12.2005 and on that date, the petitioner also appeared, but not produced any document. The petitioner only produced a photograph depiciting the religious function performed by the Schedule Tribe people. Even as per the impugned order, the committee granted 10 days time to enable the petitioner to produce records, however, he did not produce any additional documentary evidence. Therefore, at this point of time, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the impugned order is illegal as the respondent has not applied its mind before passing the same.
7. The petitioner would contend that in the impugned order, it is categorically stated that the petitioner did not produce any records, but in the latter portion it reads that a photograph was produced. In fact, the impugned order is very clear that the document which was originally produced by the petitioner was only a photograph depiciting the religious function performed by the Schedule Tribe people and nothing more. As mentioned above, the petitioner was granted ten days time to enable him to produce documentary evidence in support of his claim, but he has not chosen to produce any document, except the photograph. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent is not vitiated by the statement made in the impugned order regarding the documents filed by the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the petitioner only relied on a photograph in support of his claim, but the same was rightly rejected by the committee.
8. The next point argued was that the report of the Sub-Collector or the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer was not furnished to the petitioner. This is specifically denied by the respondent in the counter. In thecounter, it is stated that both the report of the Sub-Collector as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer were furnished to the petitioner even during the pendency of the matter before the District Level Committee. The entire files were transferred to the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, including the reports and on perusal of the same, the committee has passed a detailed order. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner is not legally sustainable and it is liable to be rejected.
9. As regards the constitution of the committee, the committee comprises of an Anthropologist in accordance with the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and another, AIR 1995 SC 94, The petitioner himself admitted that the committee consists of an anthropologist and that the committee had also tested the knowledge of the petitioner with regard to 'Kannada' speaking and thereafter only orders were passed. Therefore, it is clear that the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case had been scruplously followed by the committee before passing the impugned order.
10. The petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence, except a photograph. In the counter, it was categorically stated that earlier, a certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Harur on 29.06.1977 certifying that the petitioner belonged to Kurumba community, which is classified as a Most Backward Class. This certificate was suppressed by the petitioner and it came to light only during the course of an enquiry. Later on, the petitioner applied and secured a certificate to the effect that he belonged to 'Kuruman' community which is classified as a Schedule Caste. In fact, in the enquiry, it came to light that the transfer certificates pertaining to the petitioner, his brother and sister issued by the school authorities indicate that they belonged to 'Kurumba' community. Even as per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner himself has admitted that the 'Kuruman' community people only resides in the Hill areas such as The Nilgiris District, whereas, the petitioner is a native of Vellore District and residing there.
11. In this connection, it is worthwhile tomention that the transfer certificate issued to the petitioner indicates that it was issued on 02.06.1976 after the completion of 11th standard by the petitioner in which it is clearly stated that the petitioner belonged to 'Kurumba' community. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Constitution bench of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others) 2001 1 SCC 4 wherein in para No. 36 (2), the Honourable Supreme Court held that "The Scheduled Tribes Ordermust be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. In this case, the dispute is whether the petitioner belonged to 'Kurumba' 'Kuruman' or 'Kurumbar' community. The authority to decide the communal status of the petitioner is the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the Government as per the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court. The Committee, after scrutinising the materials on record and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner, held in detail that the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner certifying that he belonged to 'Kuruman' community is invalid and cancelled it. Therefore, it is not open to thepetitioner to say that there is only a small word different between the communities such as 'Kurumba' 'Kuruman' or 'Kurumbar' community and that the committee failed to take into consideration the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his favour. It is neither for the Tribunal or for the Court to interpret the certificate issued in favour of a person certifying that he belonged to a particular community. It is only for the committee to go into the question as to whether a person belonged to a particular community or not and pass orders, which was precisely done in this case.
12. In this context, we are also governed by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and another, AIR 1995 SC 94 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court analysed the scope of interference by the High Courts in matters of this nature. The Honourable Supreme Court held that 'High Court is not a Court of appeal to appreciate evidence. The Committee, which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and record a finding, though another view, as a Court of appeal may be possible, is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately recorded the finding." When we analyse the order passed by the committee, which is impugned in this writ petition, in the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, we are of the view that the present order has been passed after analysing the documents, evidence on record and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as directed by the Honourable Supreme Court. The Committee also consists of an anthropologist as directed by the Honourable Supreme Court. A fact finding order has been passed by the committee cancelling the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and we hold that the impugned order is per se in accordance with law.
13. In an identical situation, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (M. Ponnambalam vs. The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli and others) 2002 (1) MLJ 411 found that even in respect of discreet enquiry fairness would require that the statements made therein should be put to the appellant before the final decision is taken following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Gulzar Singh vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1999) 3 SCC 107. In Para No.6 and 7, it was held as follows:-
"6. ......Therefore, in cases where discreet enquiries are conducted and statements were recorded from various persons, the view of the Supreme Court is that, fairness would require that the statements should be put to the appellant before final decision is taken. It does not mean that statements should be recorded in the presence of the person aggrieved and the principles of natural justice would be satisfied, if copies of the statements are put on notice to the employee before the final decision is taken. Of course, it is open to the employee concerned to pray for cross-examination of the persons who gave statements against him, but on the facts of the case, it is not established that the appellant has prayed for such an opportunity to cross-examine the persons who gave statements which was denied to him.
7. ....These beneficial provisions are made for the advancement of S.C. and S.T. only. That cannot be allowed to be concerned by persons who do not actually belong to those communities. Therefore, the State is expected to see that the ultimate beneficiarieds are persons of S.C. And S.T. communities. Therefore, the District Collector has only discharged his duty when he cancelled the certificate issued wrongly by the authorities."
14. In this case, it has been proved that even the earlier enquiry report submitted by the Sub-Collector as well as the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer were furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner was also given an opportunity of hearing by the committee to putforth his case. Therefore, we hold that the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has followed all the procedures contemplated before passing the impugned order cancelling the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.
15. In this connection, we are also fortified by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (K.L. Karibeeran and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another) AIR 1995 Madras 292 wherein it was held that "The community of 'Kurumans' is different from the community of 'Kurumbas'. Just because the State Government has made a recommendation to the Central Government to include the castes 'Kurumbas' or 'Kurubas' in the list of Scheduled Tribes, it is not open to High Court to hold that 'Kurumans' 'Kurumbas' 'Kurubas' etc., are all referring to the same community" In the said judgment, in para-27, it was further held that "None of the materials placed before us by the petitioners prove that the names of "Kurumans", "Kurumbas", "Kurubas" etc., are all the names of one community or that they are synonymous. Even from the materials available, we find that there were different groups of people, one known by the name "Kurumans" and the other known by the name "Kurumba" or "Kuruba". Their life-styles were different and they were pursuing different avocations. In view of the conflicting materials placed before us, we are unable to accept the contentions put forward by the petitioners."
16. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents produced the copy of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Central Act No. 108 of 1976) which contains the list of Schedule Caste and Most Backward Class community in Tamil Nadu. As per the list containing the names of the Most Backward community people, the words used is "Kurumba". As per the Schedule Schedule Tribe list, it is stated that 'Kuruman" community people exist in The Nilgiris District. In other places, they were called as 'Kurumba' and 'Kurumban' community. There are lot of difference between the 'Kurumba' and 'Kurumban" community people. As per the findings of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Community, the petitioner belonged to 'Kurumba' community, which is classified as a Most Backward Class in the list. The petitioner himself has earlier obtained a community certificate in his favour issued by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar certifying that the Petitioner belonged to 'Kurumba' community, which is classified as Most Backward Class and considering the same, the committee has rightly rejected the community certificate issued in his favour certifying that he belonged to 'Kuruman' community. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the committee, which is impugned in this writ petition. We therefore dismiss the writ petition. No costs.
(R.B.I.J.,) (B.R.J.,)
02-11-2010
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
rsh
To
The Chairman and Secretary to Government
State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
R. BANUMATHI, J
and
B. RAJENDRAN, J
Pre-Delivery Order
in WP No. 15826 of 2006
02.11.2010