Madras High Court
G.M.Malini vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 April, 2009
Author: K.Mohan Ram
Bench: K.Mohan Ram, M.Duraiswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.04.2009 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.MOHAN RAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.11458 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 1. G.M.Malini 2. G.M.Manoj .. Petitioners Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Sub Collector, Thiruppathur Thirupathur Taluk, Vellore District. .. Respondent Writ Petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in O.Mu.No.A8.4723/2007 dated 17.10.2007 of the respondent herein and quash the orders passed therein and consequently direct the respondent to immediately issue a permanent community certificate to the petitioners herein as belonging to Hindu Kurumans (Scheduled Tribe) Community. For Petitioners .. Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed For respondent .. Mr.A.Arumugam O R D E R
(Order of the Court was delivered by K.MOHAN RAM, J.) The above Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed O.Mu.No.A8.4723/2007 dated 17.10.2007 of the respondent and direct the respondent to immediately issue a permanent community certificate to the petitioners herein as belonging to Hindu Kurumans (Scheduled Tribe) Community.
2.The case of the petitioners in brief is set out below:
The first petitioner is the sister of the second petitioner. According to the petitioners, they belong to Hindu Kurumans Community, which is one of the community listed under the Constitution (scheduled Tribes) order 1950, passed by the President of India. At the time of filing the Writ Petition, the second petitioner was doing his B.Com., while the first petitioner who is a physically challenged person has completed her Higher Secondary Course and has also done DCA, DTP, Tally, Micro Media and First Class in Typewriting (Lower grade). For getting employment on the reserved category, they need a community certificate. Hence, their father G.Mahendran, submitted an application on 23.2.2007 to the respondent seeking for a community certificate. There was no reply and hence an Application under 6 of the Right to Information Act was filed on 5.4.2007. The Personal Assistant to the respondent sent a reply dated 11.4.2007 stating that the respondent had not issued any Hindu Kurumans (ST) Certificate for the past 29 years. In such circumstances, the petitioners sent another Application seeking to issue a community certificate by enclosing ten documents, which was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Thirupathur for enquiry. An enquiry was fixed on 21.6.2007, but actually the enquiry was conducted on 13.7.2007.
3. It is stated in the affidavit that in the enquiry notice, the father of the petitioners was asked to produce the documents prior to 40 years to show that the petitioners belong to Hindu Kurumans Community. According to the petitioners, the following documents were produced:
1. Service Certificate of the grand father of the petitioners, wherein he is shown as belonging to Kurumans (ST) Community;
2. Community certificate of the petitioners grand father issued in the year 1958;
3. Service Register of the grant father of the petitioners, showing that he belongs to Kurumans (ST) Community;
4.Service Confirmation order dated 21.7.1961 of the grand father of the petitioners showing that he belongs to (ST) community;
5.Posting order dated 21.6.1961 of the grand father of the petitioners showing that he belongs to ST Community;
6.Registered Sale deed dated 16.9.1968 of the petitioners grand mother Kamalammal, wherein she is shown as beloning to Kurumans Community;
7.School Transfer Certificate of the petitioners father wherein he is shows as belongs to Kurumans Community.
8.S.S.L.C. Book School Transfer Certificate of the petitioners father wherein he is shows as belongs to Kurumans Community.
9.Service Certificate dated 29.6.1998 of the petitioners father wherein he is shown as belonging to Kurumans (ST) Community.
10.Community Certificate dated 21.6.1976 of the petitioners paternal uncle G.Manisekar.
11.Community Certificate dated 15.1.1982 of the petitioners another paternal uncle G.Kumar.
4. In the affidavit it is specifically stated in paragraph No.7 that the paternal grand father of the petitioners namely G.Gudiyannan was employed in the Postal Department and he was issued with a community certificate in the year 1958 itself showing him as belonging to Hindu Kurumans Community. The said fact is borne out from the Service Register. Further, the Sale Deed which contains a reference to his community was also produced.
5. It is further stated that the other documents produced would show that the paternal grand father, grand mother and all other relatives of the petitioners belonging to Hindu Kurumans Community. Apart from the said documents, the father of the petitioners had also given a detailed statement at the time of enquiry wherein he had categorically claimed that the petitioners belonging to the Hindu Kurumans Community. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Tahsildar, Thiruppathur had forwarded a report to the respondent, the copy of the same, according to the petitioners were not served on them. Whileso, on 27.9.2007, the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioners had been issued. Being aggrieved by that, the above Writ Petition has been filed.
6. Though as aforesaid, a detailed affidavit has been filed in support of the Writ Petition and though time has been granted by this Court to file a counter affidavit, the respondent so far has not chosen to file a counter affidavit and hence considering the fact that any further delay in issue of a community certificate to the petitioners would adversely affect their interest, we are constrained to dispose of the above Writ Petition with available materials on records.
7. Heard Mr. W.M.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.
8. Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the various certificates enumerated, the details of which has been set out in the affidavit and the copies of the same have also been enclosed in the typed set of papers and submitted that all the family members of the petitioners belong to Hindu Kurumans Community. The following certificates pertaining to the grand father of the petitioners namely the Service Certificate, Community Certificate, Appointment Order, Confirmation order etc.; the following certificates issued in favour of the father of the petitioners namely First Page of the S.S.L.C. Book, Transfer Certificate, Community Certificates numbering 3 issued in favour of one G.Manisekaran, who is the paternal uncle of the petitioners; Community Certificate of one G.Kumar, who is the paternal uncle of the petitioners and the Service Register of G.Mahendran, the father of the petitioners clearly show that all of them belong to Hindu Kurumans Community.
9. The learned counsel by placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 31.7.2008 passed in W.P.No.20204 of 1999, submitted that when a claim is made on the basis of the fact that the father of the petitioners, their grand father, their paternal uncles and brothers have been issued with Community Certificates and Certificates evidencing the same are all made available to the respondent, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the respondent not to rely upon those documents and issue the community certificate applied for by the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that so long as the community certificate issued to the aforesaid members of the petitioners family is valid without being cancelled, the same could be looked into and relied upon to issue a community certificate. The learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid petition may be allowed based on the decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. SUMIT ANAND reported in 2005(12) Supreme Court Cases 248. To the same effect is the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the another Division Bench in W.P.Nos. 2656, 6446 and 35007 of 2007.
10. The learned counsel submitted that the reason assigned by the respondent for rejecting the request of the petitioners are unsustainable. In the impugned order, the respondent has stated that as per the report of the Tahsildar, Thirupathur, only 'Kurumba" community people are residing in Parchal village and not "Kuruman" community people. As far as this contention is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even as per the various census reports, the name of the community mentioned as living in North Arcot District to which the petitioners belong are 'Kuruman". Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader also fairly submits that the said observation of the respondent based on the report of the Tahsildar, cannot be sustained in the light of the entry found in the Census Reports.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though the father of the petitioners had produced a certificate issued by the Southern Railways with whom the father of the petitioners is employed, certifying the fact that he belongs to 'Kuruman' (ST) community, as per the Service Register maintained in his Office, the respondent in the order has stated that the petitioners father's community certificate has not been produced. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the original community certificate of the father of the petitioners had been produced with the Southern Railways at the time of joining, the same could not be produced and only based on the original community certificate, the certificate dated 29.8.1990 has been issued and the genuiness of the same has not been questioned by the respondent. The learned counsel submitted that when the genuiness of the certificate issued by the Southern Railways has not been questioned, there is no reason for not relying upon the same and therefore submit that the said reason is unsustainable. Apart from the above two reason, no other reason whatsoever have been given by the respondent for rejecting the application of the petitioners.
12. It has to be pointed out that all the certificates which have been produced along with the application of the petitioners in proof of the fact that the grand father, paternal grant father, father and brother of the petitioners belong to Hindu Kurumans Community, still holds good and the genuiness of the same have not been questioned by the respondent, there is absolutely no justifiable reason on the part of the respondent who has rejected the request of the petitioners for issue of community certificate.
13. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the decision in STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS Vs. SUMIT ANAND reported in 2005(12) Supreme Court Cases 248 and the decision of the two Division Bench of this Court referred to supra, the above Writ Petition has to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The respondent is hereby directed to issue a community certificate to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
rpa To The Revenue Divisional Officer Sub Collector, Thiruppathur Thirupathur Taluk, Vellore District