Madras High Court
S.Dheenadhayalan vs )The State Of Tamilnadu on 5 April, 2016
Bench: S.Manikumar, C.T.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Writ Petition(MD)No.1513 of 2008
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2008
S.Dheenadhayalan .... Petitioner
vs.
1)The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2)The District Level Vigilance Committee,
rep. by its Chairman and District Collector,
Madurai, Madurai District.
3)The Controller,
Controller of Administration and Vigilance Officer,
Central Electro Chemical Research Institute,
Karaikudi-630 006. .... Respondents
(R3 impleaded as per the order dated 06.03.2008 in M.P.3/08 in W.P.1513/08)
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
impugned order vide Ni.Mu.No.148336/96 (Athi 8) dated 02.05.07 on the file of
the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Gopala Krishna Lakshmana Raju
Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Venkateswaran
^For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.Chellapandian,
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr.M.Alagadevan, Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.KPS.Palanivel Rajan
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR) Challenge in this writ petition, is to an order made in Ni.Mu.No.148336/96 (Athi 8) dated 02.05.2007, on the file of the District Level Vigilance Committee, represented by its Chairman and District Collector, Madurai District, 2nd respondent herein.
2.Facts of the case, as per the supporting affidavit are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Scientific Assistant in Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI), Karaikudi, on 08.04.1981, and gained periodical promotion. When he was working as Scientist E2, with six years of remaining service, his employer received a complaint, from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Association, complaining about the petitioner's community status. The employer referred the community certificate of the petitioner, for verification.
3.Pursuant to the same, the District Level Vigilance Committee, represented by its Chairman and District Collector, Madurai District, 2nd respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as, 'the committee') directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, to conduct an enquiry. He conducted an enquiry, and the report, dated 12.02.2003, was not in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the committee ordered a spot enquiry, which culminated in a report, dated 05.12.2006.
4.Thereafter, the committee passed the impugned order in Ni.Mu.No.148336/96 (Athi 8), dated 02.05.2007, holding the community certificate of the petitioner as fake. The petitioner preferred an appeal, to the Secretary to the Government, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, who returned the same, stating that the order of the committee has become final. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.
5.Mr.Gopala Krishna Lakshmana Raju, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner's parents belonged to different communities. Mother of the petitioner belonged to Hindu-Muchi, scheduled caste community. He further submitted that the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.477, Social Welfare Department, dated 27.06.1975, in the matter of determination of the community of children, born to inter-caste couple, on the basis of the declaration of the parents, regarding the way of life, in which, the children are brought up and that the declaration in respect of one child will apply to all children.
6.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the basis of the abovesaid G.O., when an application was made for issuance of community certificate, the Tahsildar, Madurai, on verification issued a community certificate, certifying that the petitioner belongs to Muchi community, recognised as scheduled caste under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes List (Modification) Order 1965, read with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956, the Constitution (Jammu & Kashmir) Scheduled Castes Order 1956, the Constitution (Andaman and Nicobar) Scheduled Tribes Order 1959. He further submitted that in the Service Book of R.Soundararajan, petitioner's maternal uncle, his community has been mentioned as Muchi Caste (Scheduled Caste), as per the certificate dated 20.12.1965, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Madurai. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner's maternal uncle had worked in Government Erskine Hospital, Madurai.
7.Learned Senior Counsel also invited the attention of this Court, to the community certificates dated 11.10.1988, issued by the Tahsildar, Madurai South, to S.Padmanaban and S.Jeyalakshmi, son and daughter of R.Soundararajan, respectively.
8.Inviting the attention of this Court, to the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, in Na.Ka.No.6910-2005 -L, dated 05.12.2006, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that after conducting a spot enquiry, on 30.11.2006, in the presence of the Tahsildar, Madurai South, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar and Village Administrative Officer, Ayanpapakudi Village, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, found that the petitioner belongs to Hindu-Muchi scheduled caste community. He also added that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, has examined the villagers and also verified the documents of the relatives of the petitioner, before arriving at the abovesaid conclusion.
9.According to the Learned Senior Counsel, when the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, in his report, dated 05.12.2006, submitted to the District Collector, Madurai District, has categorically arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to Hindu-Muchi, a scheduled caste community, without considering the report in proper perspective, the committee has given a different finding, against law and facts. He further submitted that the committee has failed to consider that the petitioner's maternal uncle, Late Mr.Soundararajan had served in Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, under Family Planning Section as a Cinema Operator, whose Service Register clearly reveals that he belongs to Muchi community.
10.He further added that the committee has failed to consider that Mr.Padmanaban and Ms.Jeyalakshmi, son and daughter, respectively, of the petitioner's maternal uncle, have been issued with community certificates, by the Tahsildar, Madurai South, declaring them, as belonging to Hindu-Muchi community.
11.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the committee has erred in arriving at the conclusion, that the petitioner had obtained a fake community certificate, for obtaining employment in Central Electro Chemical Research Institute. According to him, the petitioner's father A.Subbaraju was also known as A.Sundararaj and referred to as A.S.Raju. In the Service Book, his name was mentioned as A.Sundararaj. In the Pension Payment Order, his name was entered as A.Sundararaj. In the Ration Card, his name was mentioned as A.Subburaju. But all the names refer only to one person i.e., the petitioner's father and that there was no dispute over the same. Such being the case, giving undue weightage to the difference in the names, and citing the same as one of the grounds, the committee has erroneously declared that the petitioner does not belong to Muchi community. In the grounds of challenge, the writ petitioner has contended that the committee has failed to examine his mother, who was receiving family pension after the demise of the petitioner's father. The writ petitioner has also contended that the committee has failed to examine the children of his maternal uncle R.Soundararajan, who have been issued with scheduled caste community certificates.
12.Inviting the attention of this Court, to another reasoning of the committee that all the names of the relatives of the petitioner from the mother's side end with Raj, Rajan, and more particularly, the petitioner's maternal uncle Soundararajan and his brother Seenivasaraj and correlating the name of the writ petitioner's father as A.S.Raju, mentioned in the community certificate of the petitioner dated 06.06.1977, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Headquarters, Madurai South, Madurai, and on the aspect of finding fault with the petitioner, for not submitting any documents of their community status, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the committee was not right in arriving at the conclusion merely because the names of the maternal relatives end with Raj, Rajan, the petitioner does not belong to Muchi community. He further submitted that the verification of the service particulars of the petitioner's relative, Tmt.Neelavathi, and the conclusion of the committee that the petitioner and her relatives never lived in Ayanpapakudi Village, were not put on notice to the petitioner, so as to enable him to offer his explanation.
13.Lastly, based on the extract from the Book, ''Castes and Tribes of Southern India'' written by Edgar Thurston, K.Rangachari, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that members of Muchi community are Telugu speaking people called as, Raju, Jinigara or Chitrakara, and mainly engaged in painting, and that the petitioner has also genetically acquired the said ability in painting. For the aboveaid reasons, he submitted that the finding of the committee that the petitioner has falsely obtained a community certificate, stating that he belongs to Hindu-Muchi, scheduled caste community, is erroneous and prayed for reversal of the finding. Added further, he submitted that the petitioner has since retired from the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute, Karaikudi.
14.Opposing the prayer sought for, and taking this Court, through the impugned order, dated 02.05.2007, Mr.K.Chellapandian, Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submitted that community certificate of the maternal uncle of the petitioner, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Madurai, and community certificates issued to his son and daughter, Padmanaban and Jeyalakshmi, by the Tahsildar, Madurai South, are stated to have been issued describing them, as Hindu-Muchi, scheduled caste community. When the community certificate of the petitioner, dated 06.06.1977, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Headquarters, Madurai South, Madurai, was verified, it did not contain the proceedings number and signature of the Assistant. The same community certificate has been attested by the Tahsildar, Madurai South. Here again, there is no office number, initial of the Assistant or Deputy Tahsildar. In the School Transfer Certificate of the petitioner, nothing is mentioned about his community status. From the above, it is possible to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to a scheduled caste community.
15.Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner dated 31.01.1970, as against column 2(iii) ''community; whether Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Most Backward Class or Converted to Christianity from Scheduled Caste'', the father of the petitioner has not mentioned the community status and that therefore, the community certificate, dated 06.06.1977, has been obtained fraudulently.
16.Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in the community certificate, dated 06.06.1977 issued to the petitioner, the name of his father has been stated as A.S.Raju. He further submitted that the names of the relatives of the petitioner's mother end with Raj, Rajan. He has also submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he has no relatives through his parents. According to him, when the committee has scrutinised the details of the Southern Railways Vigilance Wing, relating to the community status of his relative Tmt.Neelavathi, it is noticed that neither the petitioner, nor his relatives, resided in Ayanpapakudi Village, Madurai South Taluk. It is also his contention that even the Anthropologist has opined that the petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste community. Thus, after conducting a proper enquiry and on an overall assessment of the evidence, the committee has categorically held that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu-Muchi scheduled caste community, whereas he belongs to only Hindu-Patturaju community.
17.By way of reply, and placing reliance on the Circular No.25/2004, dated 03.08.2004 of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at some point of time, community certificates were issued without proper particulars regarding number of the proceedings etc., and that therefore, the District Revenue Officers of the districts, have been directed to check the work relating to issue of community certificates and to ensure proper maintenance of Special Registers etc.
18.At this juncture, Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the abovesaid instructions, were issued, only in the context of issue of Community Certificates in Permanent Cards and that the same are not applicable to the case on hand.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
19.Admittedly, Mr.A.Subbaraju belonged to some other community. His wife, mother of the petitioner, is stated to be an illiterate and does not possess any community certificate.
20.G.O.Ms.No.477, Social Welfare Department, dated 27.06.1975, reads as follows:-
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Children born to inter-caste married couple ? Determination of community ? Orders issued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.477 Dated 27.6.1975 ORDER :
The Government have been extending certain concessions to the members of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes from time to time. A question has arisen about the determination of the community of the children born of inter-caste marriage
2.The Government after carefully examining the question direct that the children born of inter-caste marriage, that is marriages.
i) between a person of a Scheduled Tribe and another of a Scheduled Caste or Backward Class or Forward Class.
ii) between a person of a Scheduled Caste and another of a Backward Class or Forward Class.
iii) between a person of a Backward Class and a Forward Class.
shall be considered to belong to either the community of the father or the community of the mother according to the declaration of the parents regarding the way of life, in which the children are brought up and that the declaration in respect of one child will apply to all children. / By order of the Governor / S.Satyabhama Secretary to Government
21.According to the petitioner, during his school education, his father had not mentioned the community status. In the light of the Government order stated supra, we are of the view that non mentioning of the community in the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner would not prohibit the petitioner from seeking issuance of proper community certificate, after passing of the abovesaid G.O. In the Legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Madurai South, dated 26.06.2000, the name of the petitioner's father is shown as A.Sundararaj. The Tahsildar, Madurai North, has certified that brother of the petitioner Thiru.Sridharan and another brother of the petitioner Thiru.Anantha Ramaraji were permanent resident of Door No.51, Hakeem Ajmalkhan Road, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai-2.
22.Form of Caste Certificate said to have been issued by the Tahsildar Headquarters reads as follows:-
''FORM OF CASTE CERTIFICATE This is to certify that S.Dheenadayalan, son of Thiru.A.S.Raju of village Ayanpapakudi, Dt. Madurai in the Tamil Nadu State. S.Dheenadayalan belongs to the Michi community which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes List (Modification) order 1965, read with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956, the Constitution (Jammu & Kashmir) Scheduled Castes Order 1956, the Constitution (Andaman and Nicobar) Scheduled Tribes Order 1959. Shri A.S.Raju and his family ordinarily reside(s) in the village of Ayanpapakudi of Madurai District of the Tamil Nadu State.''
23.However, as rightly contended by the Learned Additional Advocate General, it does not bear the date and office proceedings number. However, it bears the signature, dated 30.05.1977, of the Village Munsiff and Karnam, Ayanpappakudi Village and the signature, dated 02.06.1977, of the Revenue Inspector. The entries in the Service Register of R.Soundararajan, claimed to be the maternal uncle of the petitioner shows that he belongs to Muchi Caste (Scheduled Caste), as per the certificate, dated 20.12.1965, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Madurai. Name of his father is mentioned as R.Rengasamy Raju (Late). Office of R.Soundararajan, is shown as Government Erskine Hospital, Madurai.
24.Community certificate of S.Jeyalakshmi, daughter of R.Soundararajan, bears the Serial No.1068/88, District Code No.14, and the Village Code No.027, wherein, the community of the said Jeyalakshmi is mentioned as Hindu- Muchi scheduled caste, and the Tahsildar, Madurai South, has certified that her family ordinarily resides at No.29, Jaihind Puram, Ist Street, Madurai- 11, Madurai South.
25.Community Certificate of S.Padmanaban, son of R.Soundararajan , bears the Serial No.1068/88, and that it has the same details. It is true that the transfer certificate of the petitioner does not state anything, about his community status. Though the name of the petitioner's father is shown as A.S.Raju in the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner and A.Subbaraju in the Transfer Certificate of the petitioner, in both the certificates, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 01.04.1954. In the Election Commission of India Identity Card, issued to the father of the petitioner, his name is shown as Subbaraj. In the Pension Payment Identity Card, the name of the petitioner's father is shown as A.Sundararaj (A.S.Raju). In the Ration Card, the name of the petitioner's father is shown as A.Subbaraju. Merely because the name of the petitioner is mentioned as A.S.Raju, Sundararaj etc., it cannot be said that the person is different, nor it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not the son of A.Subbaraju. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the petitioner is not claiming any community status, through his father, but he stakes his claim, through his mother Eithrajammal, stated to be belonging to Hindu-Muchi, scheduled caste community.
26.Perusal of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6910-2005-L, dated 05.12.2006 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, addressed to the District Collector, Madurai District, makes it clear that when the District Collector, Madurai District, has directed him to conduct an enquiry, he has conducted a local enquiry and spot inspection in the presence of the Tahsildar, Madurai South, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar and Village Administrative Officer, Ayanpapakudi Village, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, and that is evident from the following passage.
''Nkw;fhZk; nghUs; njhlh;ghf ghHit 1y; fhZk; fbjk; %yk; jdpaH jpU.v];.jPdjahsd; vd;gtuJ ,e;J-Kr;rp rhjp nka;j;jd;ik njhlh;ghf mwpf;if Nfhhpajpy; ghHit 2y; fhZk; fbjk; %yk; mwpf;if nra;jjpy; ghHit 3 kw;Wk; 4y; fhZk; fbjk; %yk; jdpahpd; rhjp nka;j;jd;ik njhlHghf cs;S{H tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;L kW mwpf;if nra;AkhW njhptpf;fg;gl;ljhy; kPz;Lk; jy tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;L vdJ mwpf;ifapid gzpe;J rkHg;gpf;fpNwd;.
jdpaH jpU.v];.jPdjahsd; vd;gtH kJiu njw;F tl;lj;jpy; 1977y; ngw;w rhjp;r;rhd;wpd; kPJ kJiu njw;F tl;lk; mad; ghg;ghFb fpuhkj;jpy; 30.11.2006 md;W jy tprhuiz Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;lJ.''
27.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, has also examined one Kannaiah S/o. Thiru.Muthukaruppa Konar and Perumal S/o.Palaniyandi aged about 72 and 75 years respectively. They have given statements in writing, to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Hindu-Muchi community. The Village Administrative Officer has also stated that the petitioner belongs to the said community. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also noticed that in the School Record, dated 14.05.1965, of the petitioner's brother, S.Sridharan, community has been mentioned as Hindu-Muchi. He has also observed that in the Service Register of the petitioner's maternal uncle, R.Soundararajan, the community is mentioned as Muchi Caste (scheduled caste). The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, has also taken note of the community certificates of Mr.S.Padmanaban and Ms.S.Jeyalakshmi, son and daughter of the petitioner's maternal uncle R.Soundararajan, respectively.
28.Perusal of the impugned order shows that the committee has merely stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, in Na.Ka.No.6910-2005 -L dated 05.12.2006, has given a report, stating that the petitioner belonged to Hindu-Muchi community. Absolutely, there is no discussion on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. On the contra, the committee seemed to have independently assessed the documents and by observing that the community certificate of the petitioner dated 06.06.1977 did not bear any number, date and signature of the Assistant, discarded the same. The committee has not given any reason, as to why the certificates of Mr.S.Padmanaban and Ms.S.Jeyalakshmi, son and daughter of the petitioner's maternal uncle R.Soundararajan, respectively, should not be relied on. The committee has also not considered the entry made in the Service Register of the maternal uncle R.Soundararajan.
29.Though the committee has discarded the community certificate, dated 06.06.1977, on the grounds stated supra, it has failed to consider that it contains the signature of the Tahsildar below which, he has written the date as 06.06.1977. The Village Administrative Officer and Karnam of Ayanpapakudi Village has affixed his signature and date as 30.05.1977 and that the signature of the Revenue Inspector also bears the date as 02.06.1977.
30.On the aspect as to whether the community certificate, dated 06.06.1977, of the petitioner, has to be totally rejected, for the reason that it did not bear the number and date, Circular No.25/2004, dated 03.08.2004, of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, indicates that instructions have been issued, based on G.O.Ms.No.781 Revenue dated 02.05.1988, when the system of issuing permanent community certificate cards was introduced. There is no reason as to why the committee has not conducted any verification, as to whether the signatures contained in the community certificate, dated 06.061977, issued to the petitioner belong to the then Tahsildar and others, who have signed the said community certificate.
31.Though the Learned Senior Counsel relied on the abovesaid Circular, to support his contentions that registers were not maintained properly, and thus the District Revenue Officers being the monitoring officers, to constantly check the work relating to issue of community certificate in permanent cards, were directed to ensure proper maintenance of special registers, prompt disposal of the applications etc, as rightly contended by the Learned Additional Advocate General, the said circular is not applicable to the case on hand. Reading of the circular indicates that there were deficiencies in not maintaining proper registers and thus the instructions have been issued.
32.One of the reasons assigned by the committee is that the names of the relatives of the petitioner's mother end with Raj, Rajan, correlating with the community of the petitioner's father Hindu-Patturaju. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the following passage from the Book, ''Castes and Tribes of Southern India, written by Edgar Thurston, K.Rangachari, Volume-V, wherein, as regards Muchi community, the Learned Authors in the research work, have stated as follows:-
''Mucchi.---The Mucchis or Mochis are summed up, in the Madras Census Report, 1901, as being a Marathi caste of painters and leather-workers. In the Mysore Census Report it is noted that ''to the leather-working caste may be added a small body of Mochis, shoemakers and saddlers. They are immigrant Mahratas, who it is said, came into Mysore with Khasim Khan, the general of Aurangzib. They claim to be Kshatriyas and Rajputs ? pretensions which are generally admitted. They are shoemakers and saddlers by trade, and are all Saivas by faith.'' ''The Mucchi,'' Mr.A.Chatterton writes, ''is not a tanner, and as a leather-worker only engages in the higher branches of the trade. Some of them make shoes, but draw the line at sandals. A considerable number are engaged as menial servants in Government offices. Throughout the country, nearly every office has its own Mucchi, whose principal duty is to keep in order the supplies of stationery, and from raw materials manufacture ink, envelops and covers and generally make himself useful. A good many of the so-called Mucchis, however, do not belong to the caste, as very few have wandered south of Madras, and they are mostly to be found in Ganjam and Ceded Districts.'' The duties of the office Mucchi have further been summed up as ''to mend pencils, prepare ink from powders, clean ink-bottles, stitch note-books, paste covers, rule forms, and affix stamps to covers and aid the despatch of tappals'' (postal correspondence). In the Moochee's Hand-book by the head Mucchi in the office of the Inspector-General of Ordnance, and contractor for black ink powder, it is stated that ''the Rev. J.P.Rottler, in his Tamil and English dictionary, defines the word Mucchi as signifying trunk-maker, stationer, painter. Mucchi's work comprises the following duties:-
To make black, red, and blue writing ink, also ink of other colours as may seem requisite.
To mend quills, rule lines, make envelopes, mount or paste maps or plans on cloth with ribbon edges, pack parcels in wax-cloth, waterproof or common paper, seal letters, and open boxes or trunk parcels.
To take charge of boxes, issue stationery for current use, and supply petty articles.
To file printed forms, etc., and bind books.'' In the Fort St.George Gazette, 1906, applications were invited from persons who have passed the Matriculation examination of the Madras University for the post of Mucchi on Rs. 8 per mensem in the office of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
In the District Manuals, the various occupations of the Mucchis are summed up as book-binding, working in leather, making saddles and trunks, painting, making toys, and pen-making. At the present day, Mucchis (designers) are employed by piece-goods merchants in Madras in devising and painting new patterns for despatch to Europe, where they are engraved on copper cylinders. When, as at the present day, the bazars of Southern India are flooded with imported piece-goods of British manufacture, it is curious to look back and reflect that the term piece-goods was originally applied in trade to the Indian cotton fabrics exported to England.
The term Mucchi is applied to two entirely different sets of people. In Mysore and parts of the Ceded Districts, it refers to Marathi-speaking workers in leather. But it is further applied to Telugu-speaking people, called Raju, Jinigara or Chitrakara, who are mainly engaged in painting, making toys etc., and not in leather-work. (See Rachevar).''
33.From the reading of the above extract, it could be deduced that members of Muchi community are Telugu speaking people called Raju, Jinigara or Chitrakara, mainly engaged in painting and making toys etc., not in leather work. Merely because the names of the maternal relatives end with Raj, Rajan, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu-Muchi community, when the Service Register of the petitioner's maternal uncle and the community certificates of his son and daughter, respectively, categorically disclose that they were recognised as Hindu-Muchi. Apart from the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, the committee seemed to have verified the service particulars of the petitioner's relative Tmt.Neelavathi working in Southern Railway. Upon perusal of the details furnished by the Southern Railways Vigilance Wing, the committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioner and his relatives never resided in Ayanpapakudi Village, Madurai South Taluk.
34.Though the committee has arrived at the abovesaid conclusion, there is nothing on record, in the impugned order of the committee, about the community status of the said Tmt.Neelavathi. What is germane to the issue is the verification of the community status of the petitioner and therefore, the committee ought to have considered that aspect, instead of mere residence. The observation of the committee that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that there were no relatives through his parents, cannot be accepted for the reason that he has produced the Service Book of his maternal uncle, community certificates of maternal uncle's son and daughter respectively. The further reason in the impugned order that the Anthropologist, a member of the committee, has opined that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu-Muchi, cannot be accepted, for the reason that there is no discussion, as to how and on what basis, the said Anthropologist has given such opinion.
35.As observed earlier, there is no reason as to why the committee has differed with the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, in Na.Ka.No.6910-2005 -L dated 05.12.2006. As pointed out, he has made a spot inspection in the presence of officials of the revenue department and examined two elderly persons in the village and that the Village Administrative Officer has also stated that the petitioner belongs to Hindu- Muchi community. There is absolutely no discussion on this aspect in the impugned proceedings and no reasons have been assigned as to why their statements were discarded. When the verification of the community status of an individual, requires field study and when the same has been done with a detailed report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, the committee has simply ignored the same, without assigning any reasons. Competence of the committee to scrutinise the documents, and arrive at a conclusion, cannot be disputed, but at the same time, if the committee has to totally ignore the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, there should be some reasons, which are conspicuously absent.
36.From the study of the learned Authors on ''Castes and Tribes of Southern India'', it could also be deduced that Muchi community people were also called as Rajus. The committee has failed to consider that the petitioner has submitted sufficient documents from the maternal side, to prove his community status. When the relatives of the petitioner on the maternal side, have been issued with valid community certificates containing serial number, date, signature of the officials, there is no reason, as to why the same have not been considered in proper perspective, or in other words, why they were discarded by the committee. For the abovesaid reasons, the contention of the Learned Additional Advocate General that there is suppression, by the petitioner, regarding the community status of his relatives through his parents, cannot be accepted. Conclusion of the committee that by adopting illegal names, the petitioner has obtained a bogus community certificate and joined Central Electro Chemical Research Institute, Karaikudi, cannot be accepted.
37.Though courts have held that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible, but at the same time, when there is no other alternative efficacious remedy, to challenge the order of the committee, as per the letter dated 27.11.2007 of the Secretary to the Government, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai, who has stated that as per G.O(2D)No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-3) Department, dated 12.09.2007, the State Level Scrutiny Committee has no powers to deal with the appeal filed by the petitioner, against the order of the District Level Vigilance Committee, with the further direction that the petitioner should seek remedy only under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is constrained to delve into the factual aspects and evidence, to find out as to whether the finding of the committee is based on proper appreciation of evidence, and as to whether there is a failure on the part of the said authority, to consider the documents submitted by the writ petitioner, in support of his contention that he belongs to Hindu-Muchi scheduled caste community. Genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner has not been questioned.
38.Courts have also held that if the finding arrived by an authority, is not based on acceptable evidence, without any legal basis or extraneous to the subject in question, like in the instant case, consideration of the names of the relatives on the maternal side, non consideration of the certificates issued by the competent authorities to the relatives of the petitioner and when such certificates also remained unquestioned, interference is certainly called for. In the abovesaid circumstances, we cannot apply the normal rule that the Writ Court would not delve into facts, more particularly, when the State Level Scrutiny Committee has declined to entertain any appeal, on the challenge to the order of the District Level Vigilance Committee.
39.Added further, in the instant case, a factual finding recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, in his report, dated 05.12.2006, holding that the writ petitioner belongs to Hindu-Muchi community, has been varied by the committee, without there being any discussion on the report and without recording any reasons, for differing with the report. Mother of the writ petitioner has not been examined. Relatives of the petitioner have not been summoned and examined. Solely based on the scrutiny of the community certificate dated 06.06.1977, of the petitioner, and for other extraneous reasons, conclusion has been arrived at that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu-Muchi scheduled caste community.
40.Record of proceedings shows that on 16.04.2008, this Court has granted interim stay of the impugned order. At the time when the present writ petition was filed, the petitioner aged about 54 years. Now, the petitioner is stated to have retired from service.
41.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order made in Ni.Mu.No.148336/96 (Athi 8) dated 02.05.2007, on the file of the District Level Vigilance Committee, represented by its Chairman and District Collector, Madurai District, 2nd respondent herein, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
To
1)The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2)The Chairman and District Collector, District Level Vigilance Committee, Madurai, Madurai District.
3)The Controller, Controller of Administration and Vigilance Officer, Central Electro Chemical Research Institute, Karaikudi-630 006..