Madras High Court
S. Nambiraj vs The District Collector, Tirunelveli ... on 2 July, 2002
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman dated 8.9.1993, cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner dated 21.2.1982, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.
2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:
According to him, he belongs to Konda Reddys community which is one of the communities listed as Scheduled Tribe under Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order 1950, passed by the President of India. In 1982-83, the Banking Services Recruitment Board, Southern Region called for applications to the post of Probationary Officers, to which, the petitioner applied for, under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe. He was selected in the written test as well as in the interview. Accordingly, he was appointed as a Probationary Officer with effect from 21.9.1983 in the third respondent bank. Even at the time of interview, he had produced a community certificate dated 21.2.1982 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, in support of his claim that he belongs to Konda Reddys Community. After satisfactory completion of two years of service as Probationary Officer, his services were confirmed. While so, from the year 1984, an enquiry was commenced by the second respondent's office with regard to the verification of his community status. He appeared before the second respondent and produced several documents in support of his claim. In fact, three different Revenue Divisional Officers have enquired him and after perusing all the documents, submitted a report holding that he belongs to Konda Reddys Community. When such is the position, he received a notice from the first respondent. Again he appeared in the office of the first respondent and placed the relevant materials. The first respondent, without considering all the relevant documents and ignoring the favourable reports of his own officers, passed the impugned order cancelling his community certificate. Hence the present writ petition.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. As per the request made by the third respondent employer, the first respondent requested the second respondent to conduct a local enquiry and send a detailed report on the genuineness of the community certificate in question. After considering the reports and the materials placed and in the absence of acceptable documents, the first respondent arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddys Community, but belongs to Hindu Reddiar - Forward Community.
4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
5. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the first respondent is justified in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddys community.
6. Even in the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli dated 7.4.1989, 9.6.1989, 29.1.1990 and the report of the Sub Collector, Tirunelveli dated 9.1.1993, have been referred to. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after conducting detailed enquiry, after enquiring several persons and after perusing the relevant documents, the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Sub Collector, Tirunelveli, after satisfying themselves, submitted a report to the District Collector holding that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddys Community. A perusal of the said reports (which finds place in the additional typed set of papers at pages 1 to 5) clearly show that they verified ancient documents of the year 1901, 1902, 1944 etc. and enquired several persons of the native place of the applicant and thereafter, after satisfying themselves, submitted a report to the Collector. I have also perused their individual reports. After going through those reports and their specific conclusion, I am unable to accept the reasoning of the first respondent holding that the reports were not based on detailed enquiry. In the absence of any reason by the first respondent and in the light of detailed report containing several documents and statements of various persons, I am of the view that the said finding is erroneous and the same cannot be accepted.
7. Apart from the above reports, the petitioner has produced the S.S.L.C. Book. No doubt, there is no specific reference mentioning his community as Konda Reddys. However, as observed in State of Maharashtra vs Milind and others ((2001) 1 SCC 4), entry in School Leaving Certificate cannot be treated as a conclusive proof in the matter of proving community status of a person concerned.
8. Apart from this, the petitioner has examined one Kanthimathinathan, President, Reddiarpatti Panchayat Union as well as the Village Administrative Officer, Palayamkottai. In addition to the specific assertion of the President of the Panchayat Union, the Village Administrative Officer has also deposed that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community. After referring to their statement, in a casual manner, the first respondent has rejected their statement. I am of the view that the reasoning of the first respondent rejecting the statement of the Village Administrative Officer cannot be accepted. Further, his statement cannot be compared with others who are related to the petitioner.
9. In addition to this, the petitioner has also produced sale deeds of the year 1902, 1944, 1973, 1976, 1982 and 1987. Among these documents, in the document of the year 1902 and 1944, there is a specific reference namely parties to those documents are Konda Reddys. It is further seen that the relationship of the petitioner with the parties in those documents has not been seriously disputed. In such circumstance, the contrary conclusion arrived at by the first respondent, cannot be accepted.
10. Taking into consideration the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 7.4.1989, 9.6.1989, 29.1.1990 as well as the report of the Sub Collector dated 9.1.1993 and the documents produced before the first respondent wherein there is a specific reference, I am of the view that the rejection of the petitioner's claim especially where there is no other evidence placed contra to suspect the proof produced by the petitioner and without appreciating the vital documents, the impugned order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside. Inasmuch as the petitioner has established his case by placing acceptable documentary evidence and in the light of the report of the higher officials namely the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Collector, it is unnecessary to remand the matter to the District Collector for reconsideration. Inasmuch as the petitioner has established his community status beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 8.9.1993 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.27574 of 1993 for stay, is closed.