Madras High Court
A.R.Suthakaran vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.P.No.18212 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 02.07.2025
Pronounced on 20.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.No.18212 of 2025 and
W.M.P.Nos.20394 and 20397 of 2025
A.R.Suthakaran . Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Joint Director / Establishment (Res),
Railway Board, Ministry of Railways,
Room No.154-A, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 001.
3. The General Manager,
Integral Coach Factory,
Chennai-600 038.
4. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer/G,
Integral Coach Factory,
Chennai-600 038. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the 1st respondent in proceedings No.5908112/CV6/2023 dated
1/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm )
W.P.No.18212 of 2025
05.03.2025 and consequential order of the 4th respondent made in
No.PB/Con/Gaz/669521 dated 26.04.2025 and quash the same and direct the
respondents 2 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant
benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.Chandrakumar
For Mr.N.Naganathan
For R1 : Mr.R.Kumaravel
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For R2 to R4 : Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy
Sr.Panel Counsel
*****
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU,J.) This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 05.03.2025 passed in No.5908112/CV6/2023 and the consequential order of the 4th respondent dated 26.04.2025 made in No.PB/Con/Gaz/669521 and to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.
Brief Facts of the case in nutshell:
2. The case of the petitioner was that he was issued with a community certificate on 25.07.1982 in C.No.412/82-45 by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Uthukottai and by way of a Form of Caste Certificate vide 2/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 No.705/86 dated 12.09.1986 that he belongs to Konda Reddy ST Community, which is fortified by the certified copy of the School Admission and Withdrawal registered, issued by the Head Master, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School dated 28.04.2024. The petitioner was selected for the post of Clerk in the Railways on 25.05.1987 under ST quota and his community certificate was referred to the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent on 06.10.2021 for verification.
2.1. The 1st respondent, through letter dated 23.11.2021 started the enquiry after a period of 34 years and the DSP, SJ & HU, Thiruvallur had conducted a detailed investigation about the family status of the petitioner and submitted his report in C.No.123/SJ&HR/2021 dated 14.11.2022 to the Director of Trial Welfare Department, Chennai and the said report has not been served upon the petitioner. Based on the report, the community certificate of the petitioner was cancelled on 03.10.2023. The order of cancellation was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.29858 of 2023, in which, the order of cancellation was set aside on the ground of non- furnishing of the Anthropologist report dated 03.11.2022 and the vigilance 3/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 report dated 14.11.2022.
2.2. In consequence of the order, those reports were served on the petitioner, in which, it was stated that the community certificate was admitted to be genuine on the basis of the genuineness certificate issued by the Sub Collector, Tiruvallur. It was found further that the Vigilance Cell had not taken any steps to verify the school records of his father. Insofar as the Anthropologist report is concerned, the affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and it is not an essential part in the process of determination of correctness of a case or tribe claim, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Jamal Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 326. No spot enquiry was conducted and the whole proceedings were only on the basis of the materials supplied by the petitioner.
2.3. The rejection of the community certificate on the basis of the Anthropologist report by the Vigilance Cell is wrong and arbitrary and no reason has been adduced about the mismatch in the Anthropological characteristics of the Konda Reddy community. The manner in which the 4/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 certificate was cancelled by the Tahsildar, Uthukottai hurriedly, creates doubt and no independent findings were given in the report. Thus, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer acted with mala fide intention and a non speaking order came to be passed without verifying other factors. Once the signature of the Tahsildar has not been disputed by the Vigilance Cell, it cannot be said that the community certificate is not genuine. Based on Anthropologist and the Vigilance reports, the 1st respondent cancelled the social status of the petitioner on flimsy reasons.
2.4. It was admitted by the 1st respondent that the school records of the petitioner found in Sl.No.73831 and the seal found in the Secondary School were genuine and there is no dispute with regard to the caste mentioned in the school record of his father. Only in the admission Register maintained by the School, the caste of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as OB Kondareddy instead of ST Kondareddy, which is nothing, but a clerical mistake and the Anthropologist report is not a conclusive document as held by this Court in W.P.No.2828 of 2022 dated 25.11.2022. The Vigilance Team of the 3rd respondent has not disproved the social status of the petitioner in the manner known to law, though it was stated by the Deputy 5/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Chief Vigilance Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai that someone has overwritten with different ink and corrected as Kondareddis. The forgery as alleged by the Vigilance Cell cannot be done by anyone, as it is a public document and cannot be altered after a lapse of 70 years. The 1st respondent, without getting any report from the school authority, rejected the social status of the petitioner without even affording an opportunity of hearing to him.
2.5. The petitioner obtained the community certificate on 25.07.1982 and during the relevant point of time, the G.O.Ms.No.1139 dated 23.03.1982 issued by the Government that only RDO is vested with the power to issue community certificate was stayed by this Court and therefore, the community certificate issued to him was valid, as the same was obtained in the interregnum. In G.O.Ms.No.1201, Social Welfare Department dated 31.05.1985, it has been stated as under:
“6(1). For the purpose of Central Government appointments, and appointments in public Sector Undertakings, Statutory and Semi-Government Bodies under the control of the Central Government, the community certificate shall continue to be issued by the Tahsildars in respect of persons belonging to Kondareddis also as in the case of other Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.” Thus, it was the stand of the petitioner that once the Government issued an 6/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 order to continue to issue the ST community certificate by the Tahsildar on the basis of the order of this Court, the impugned order of the 1st respondent is total non application of mind. Moreover, the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 initiated enquiry after a lapse of more than 40 years and there is every possibility of deterioration of the school records. The petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy sect and the word “Reddiyar” denotes only a suffix name of “Konda” and there are several sub castes in the Reddiar community, viz., Kappu Reddy, Kanjam Reddy, Konda Reddy, Motati Reddy, etc. 2.6. The 4th respondent issued the order of termination dated 26.04.2025 on the basis of the approval given by the 2nd respondent just two months prior to his retirement from service and the respondents also propose to initiate criminal action against the petitioner. In the absence of any adverse material, the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 05.03.2025 is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. The allegations levelled against the petitioner have not been proved in the manner known to law and there is no concrete evidence produced on the side of the respondents to prove that the community certificate of the petitioner was not issued by the competent authority.7/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025
3. The respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been inter alia stated as under:
i) The petitioner was selected in the ICF as Clerk/Grade-I on 25.05.1987 under ST quota and he has been granted promotions periodically. The name of the petitioner in the Transfer Certificates issued from School and College was spelt as Shri A.Sudhakaran, whereas the petitioner has given his name as A.Suthakaran in the Railway Service Commission application. In the service records, his name has been entered as Shri.A.Sudhakaran initially and later, based on his representation, it was changed as A.R.Suthakaran for all purposes;
ii) A complaint was received under Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Identity Resolution (PIDPI) with regard to the fake certificate obtained by the petitioner, the ICF Vigilance has investigated the same and referred the matter to State Level Scrutiny Committee for investigation to ascertain the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the petitioner. The Committee issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide its letter dated 21.03.2023 and the petitioner has not chosen to reply to the 8/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 show cause notice. After a thorough investigation with the employer as well as the Officer, it was concluded that Konda Reddy Form of Caste Certificate (C.C.No.705/86 dated 12.09.1986) as well as the Konda Reddiyar Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate (C.No.412/82/A5 dated 25.07.1982) of the petitioner was not genuine and both certificates were cancelled;
iii) Aggrieved by the cancellation of certificates, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29858 of 2023 before this Court, wherein a direction was issued to the 1st respondent to pass a detailed speaking order within six weeks. Consequent to the said order, the entire issue was re-examined and a speaking order was passed on 05.03.2025, reiterating that the ST community certificate is not genuine. Consequently, the Railway Board, vide their letter dated 25.04.2025 directed the ICF Administration to take further necessary action to terminate the petitioner, as the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. Based on the above directions of the Railway Board, the petitioner was terminated from service on 26.04.2025, which is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, reported in 1995 AIR 94;
9/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025
iv) During investigation, the ST community certificates of the petitioner's brothers and sister were verified by the ICF Vigilance and their caste is duly mentioned as Hindu Reddy and not Konda Reddy. It was also found that there was a tampering of public record in respect of the petitioner father's Admission and Withdrawal Register maintained by the Government Boys High School, Uthukkottai on 21.02.2025, as a patch of paper had been affixed over the original entry upon which the community's name Konda Reddis is inscribed. A careful visual inspection of the document in colour photocopy would suffice to distinguish between the irregular and genuine patchwork to falsify the original entry relating to community status. Hence, it was stated that the 1st respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and came to the conclusion that the certificates of the petitioner were bogus one and it was prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, in which it has been indicated as under:
i) Based on the request of the employer to cause verification of the genuineness of the community certificates of the petitioner, a Deputy 10/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights Wing, SC/ST Vigilance Cell, Tiruvallur District through Director, Tribal Welfare, Chennai was nominated and the District Collector, Tiruvallur was also requested to send the spot enquiry report of the RDO of concerned jurisdiction to the 1st respondent herein. As per the report of the Vigilance Cell authorities, the certificate of the petitioner was found to be not genuine and the Director also issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, but the petitioner had not responded to the show cause notice;
ii) Both the employer and the petitioner were asked to appear before the Committee along with documentary evidences and upon perusal of the evidences and depositions and documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of personal hearing, a decision was arrived at that the certificates of the petitioner are not genuine and the 1st respondent cancelled the community certificates of the petitioner. When the order of cancellation was questioned, this Court, vide order dated 09.07.2024 issued a direction to pass a detailed order, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent had taken up the case for verification, by adopting the following steps:
a) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights, District Police Office, Tiruvallur has been 11/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 requested to examined and enquire in the matter of seal found in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner, vide Government Letter No.5908112/CV-6(1)/2023-2 dated 07.10.2024. The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvallur after examination of the secondary school cumulative record book has reported in his letter dated 24.10.2024 that the seal found in the secondary school cumulative record book is genuine.
b) The copy of the SC/ST Vigilance Cell report including the report of Anthropologist was sent to the petitioner vide Government letter No.5908112/C-6(1)/2023-1, dated 03.10.2024, with a request to send his reply to substantiate his claim as Schedule Tribe.
c) The individual sent his explanation on the SC/ST Vigilance Cell report and Anthropologists report dated 25.10.2024 and 07.11.2024 respectively along with certain documents to substantiate his claim to the Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-III.
d) The SLSC-III after examining the depositions, documentary evidences submitted by the petitioner and given ample opportunities to substantiate his Community Claim, the SLSC-III passed the final orders with respect to petitioner's community Certificate.”
iii) The 1st respondent, after giving sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, passed a detailed speaking order on 05.03.2025 to the effect that the community certificate of the petitioner is not genuine and set out various reasons to justify its conclusion. Even as per the report dated 19.02.2025 of the Chief Vigilance Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai, there were corrections made in different handwriting against the community 12/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 column in the petitioner's B.Sc., application to Sir Theagaraya. In the school application form of the petitioner's son and daughter, it was mentioned as OC (Konda Reddy) and Hindu-OC respectively. Similarly, in the Transfer Certificate of the petitioner issued by the school after XII standard, it was described as OC (Konda Reddy).
iv) It was stated by the 1st respondent that the grant of ST certificate to a relative does not automatically confer tribal status on another member without separate and sufficient proof as held by the Supreme Court in Director of Tribal Welfare vs. Laveti Giri, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 32 and as per the local enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner belongs to Kappu Reddy (OC Community) and the family members have not resided in the Seethanjeri Village for the past 20 years. Thus, it was finally stated that the 1st respondent has passed the order with due application of mind on the basis of the valid documentary evidence and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material documents available on record, connected Government Orders and the 13/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 propositions laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court.
6. The petitioner was originally issued with a community certificate to the effect that he belongs to Konda Reddiar ST Community Certificate, which was issued by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Uthukottai on 25.07.1982 in C.No.412/82-45 and the petitioner also later obtained a Form of Caste Certificate on 12.09.1986 vide No.705 of 1986. The certificate was issued on the basis of the school records of the petitioner's father, wherein it was said to be mentioned that his father belonged Konda Reddy ST Community. According to the petitioner, there was a wrong entry inscribed in the admission Register maintained by the School, in which the caste of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as OB Kondareddy instead of ST Kondareddy.
7. The respondents stated that there is a fewer mismatch of anthropological characteristics of the petitioner. The theory of Anthropology relates to the study of humanity, encompassing physical characteristics, cultures, societies, and origins of a person. Of course, the objective of the 14/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 study is to distinguish as to how a modern society differs from the ancient / tribal culture scientifically. Though the anthropology report enumerates a detailed analysis of human societies, cultures and their subject subsequent developments, by way of drawing various disciplines, one cannot solely rely on the anthropology report and there are disadvantages also, inasmuch as there may a possibility of data interpretation, conveying the accurate complex information, etc. In the modern world, there are a lot cultural changes in the activities of a person and on a single look, it is impossible to adjudge the ancient culture and characteristic feature of a person. Therefore, we are in agreement with the submission of the petitioner that the Anthropologist report alone is not a conclusive document as held by this Court in W.P.No.2828 of 2022 dated 25.11.2022 with reference to the earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22504 of 2015 dated 29.07.2015, holding that the cultural Report may not be a conclusive and final proof and that it may be a material document while considering the application of the petitioner for issuance of a community certificate.
8. It is not disputed that the petitioner had obtained the community certificate on 25.07.1982 and at that time, the competent authority to issue 15/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 such certificate was the Tahsildar or the competent authority nominated by the Tahsildar. On 23.03.1982, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1139, relegating powers to the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue ST community certificate and the said order was stayed by this Court on 28.06.1982. When the stay granted by this Court was in force, the petitioner obtained the community certificate on 25.07.1982 and it cannot be said that the Tahsildar had issued the certificate to the petitioner in a casual manner without realizing its sensitivity. Subsequently, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Government Order and after its dismissal, the Government issued a revised G.O.Ms.No.9 on 03.01.1983, delegating powers to RDOs to issue such community certificates. The respondents should have taken steps to cancel the community certificates issued by Tahsildars immediately after dismissal of the Writ Petition on 05.11.1982. Having slept over the matter for years together, the action of the respondents in cancelling the community certificate of the petitioner, that too, prior to two months of his retirement is highly illegal and condemnable. The Moreover, the respondents lost sight of the fact that the Government issued yet another G.O.Ms.No.1201 dated 31.05.1985 (extracted supra), stating that the right to issue of ST community 16/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 certificate is vested with the Tahildars in respect of Central Government appointments. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed in Railways, falling under the purview of Central Government service.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kandasamy vs. Madras Port Trust, reported in 1997 (7) SCC 505, wherein it was held as follows:
“On a doubt being raised regarding the validity of certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 3.4.1991 informed the collectors of various districts in Tamil Nadu that "the permanent community certificates issued to scheduled Tribes by the Tehsildars up 11.11.89 is valid". This communication had been placed on record in the High Court. From a combined reading of G.O.M.S.No.2137 dated 11.11.89 and letter of the Joint Secretary dated 3.4.1991, (supra) it follows that whereas a community certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 are required to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officers, but the community certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 are valid certificates. In view of this position, it was not proper for the respondent to have insisted upon a fresh certificate to be produced by the appellant from the Revenue Divisional Officers as admittedly the community certificates produce by the appellant had been issued by thew Tehsildar concerned in 1987, that is , prior to 11.11.89.
In our opinion the community Certificate issued to a schedule Tribe candidate by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 is a 17/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 good and valid community certificates not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insists upon a fresh community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officers.” In the given case, though the community certificate was issued to the petitioner on 25.07.1982, the decision to cancel the said certificate was taken only on 03.10.2023, after a lapse of 41 years, based on the report of DSP, SJ & HU, Thiruvallur, which is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, reported in 1995 AIR 94, holding that the exercise of scrutinizing the certificates should be done at the earliest with utmost expedition. Pursuant to the said judgment, an Office Memorandum was issued by the Joint Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat on 24.12.2020 with the following guidelines:
“...It is pertinent to mention that the Departments/Banks/PSUs have not adhered to the above mentioned guidelines of DoP&T and CVC and also it is not in conformity with the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment delivered vide Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner in 1995 AIR 94, 1994 SSC (6) 241 Order dated 02.09.1994 since this judgment can only be implemented in prospective.
2. Here, it is pertinent to bring to your notice DoP&T OM no.230/08/2005-AVD II dated 25.05.2005, which clearly states the following:-
18/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 “Government has, therefore decided that a detailed verification of all such certificates produced before various appointing authorities since 1995 be carried. The CVOs are requested to initiate this task by collecting the details of all those who had been appointed in the Ministries/Departments or agencies including CPSUs with which they are concerned, since 1995 on the strength of ST certificates.
2. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts, it is requested that the concerned State Level Scrutiny Committee be directed to verify the ST caste certificates of only those employees who were appointed after the year 1995 and the process of verification should be completed within two months. The Action Taken Report in this regard may be please be forwarded to this Secretariat at the earliest but not later than 18.02.2021 so that the same may be placed before the Committee.”
10. The next level of argument advanced by the respondents in justifying the cancellation of the community certificate was that there was a spelling mistake in the name of the petitioner. In the Railway Service Commission application, his name was written as A.Suthakaran, whereas his name was spelt as Shri A.Sudhakaran in the service records. It is quite natural even for a prudent man that there may be a chance of oversight in writing the name and the petitioner, without realizing the impact on the 19/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 alteration of the spelling has written his name as Suthakaran in one place and as Sudhakaran in another place (in the place of 'd', the letter 't' finds place). If the entire name has been changed, then it could be assumed that the petitioner could have himself embraced some other religion that is not the case herein. Thereafter, with a view to add his father's name as initial, a letter 'R' has been prefixed before his name, which cannot be faulted with.
11. According to the respondents, there was a patch work done on the petitioner father's Admission and Withdrawal Register maintained by the Government Boys High School, Uthukkottai, by which on the original entry, the community's name Konda Reddis is inscribed. It is highly refuted by the petitioner, stating that in Paragraph No.3 of the report of the Vigilance Cell, there was an admission that the community certificate of the petitioner is genuine on the basis of the genuineness certificate issued by the Sub Collector, Tiruvallur. It was also mentioned in the report that there was no records found in respect of the schooling of the petitioner's father. Hence, this Court can infer that there are variations / lacuna in the report of the Vigilance Cell and the school authority would have done some patchwork in 20/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 order to preserve old documents, as there is no allegation to the effect that it was the petitioner, at whose instance, the patchwork was carried out or the petitioner himself had altered his community's name.
12. This Writ petition was filed in the month of May, 2025 and in the affidavit, it was averred that the petitioner is due to retire in two months and by this time, he could have retired from service, subject to the outcome of the writ petition or could not have allowed to retire. The termination of the petitioner at the fag end of his service is another irregularity committed by the 4th respondent. This Court time and again held that the suspension or termination of an employee should not be done at the close proximity of the superannuation.
13. For the foregoing discussions and observations, we are of the view that the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 05.03.2025 passed in No.5908112/CV6/2023 and the consequential order of the 4th respondent dated 26.04.2025 made in No.PB/Con/Gaz/669521 are not sustainable and have no legs to stand and are liable to set aside.21/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025
14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 05.03.2025 passed in No.5908112/CV6/2023 and the consequential order of the 4th respondent dated 26.04.2025 made in No.PB/Con/Gaz/669521 are hereby set aside. The respondents 2 to 4 are directed to grant all attendant benefits in case the petitioner retired from service or terminated from service. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
20.08.2025
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
Speaking Order
ar
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
I have had the benefit of going through the opinion of the respected sister (HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU). I am unable to agree with the reasoning or the conclusion reached by Her Ladyship and I 22/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 therefore give my own reasoning and conclusion.
2. Challenging the cancellation of the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the first respondent vide proceedings No.5908112/CV6/2023 dated 05.03.2025 and the consequential order of the fourth respondent in proceedings No.PB/Con/Gaz/669521 dated 26.04.2025 by terminating the service of the petitioner and further, seeking a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to reinstate him into service with all attendant benefits, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows:
3.1 The petitioner's father is originally from Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh and settled down in Seethanjeri Village, Uthukottai Taluk, Thiruvallur District, prior to 1950 and he had studied in a Board High School, Uthukottai in the year 1949. The Secondary School Leaving Certificate dated 08.11.1952 issued by the Board High School, Uthukottai, reveals that his father viz. A.Ramakrishna Reddy belongs to Konda Reddy ST community. In pursuance of his father's records and due enquiries, the petitioner was issued a Konda Reddiar ST community certificate vide 23/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 C.No.412/82-45 dated 25.07.1982 by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Uthukottai and latter issued a Form of Caste Certificate vide No.705/86 dated 12.09.1986 by the Tahsildar, Uthukottai, in the prescribed format as per the rules in force for the purpose of employment.
3.2 The petitioner was selected and appointed in the post of Clerk by the Railway Recruitment Board on 25.05.1987 in the office of the third respondent/General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai. Later on, the Form of Caste Certificate was referred to the first respondent/Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee by the third respondent on 06.10.2021 for verification of his social status.
3.3 The first respondent had started its enquiry process after a period of 34 long years through the letter dated 23.11.2021. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SJ & HU, Thiruvallur, had conducted a detailed investigation and submitted his report in C.No.123/SJ & HR/2021 dated 14.11.2022 to the Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai.
However, the said report together with documents related to it were not served to the petitioner and subsequently, they had cancelled his two 24/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 community certificates by proceedings No.18093/CV-4/2023-11 dated 03.10.2023 and the same was challenged in W.P.No.29858 of 2023, in which, this Court by order dated 09.07.2024 set aside the order of the first respondent dated 03.10.2023 on the ground that the Vigilance Cell report and Anthropologists report were not served to the petitioner and remitted his case to the first respondent.
3.4 Thereafter, a copy of the Vigilance Cell report dated 14.11.2022 and Anthropologist report dated 03.11.2022 were served on the petitioner on 03.10.2024 by the first respondent, for which, necessary explanations were submitted on 25.10.2024 and 07.11.2024. The Vigilance Cell has not taken any effort to get the school records of his father, however, it was observed in the said report that no records were found related to his father's schooling, is unsustainable and clear violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumari Madhuri Patel case.
3.5 The Vigilance Cell had admitted that his SSLC certificate issued by the school authority was certified by the said authorities as genuine. Therefore, school entries made in the Panchayat school, 25/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Seethancherry, cannot be cited upon as it was no use, when his father's school records would confirm his status.
3.6 Insofar as the Anthropologist report is concerned, the affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and it is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case, as per the judgment in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamal Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 326.
3.7 No spot enquiry was conducted. The Anthropologist has not given a single reason as to why or how the characteristics identified in his case do not match the Anthropologist characteristics of the Konda Reddy community. In the Vigilance Cell report, the Revenue officials have ascertained that the petitioner belonged to Hindu Kappu Reddy community.
3.8 Though the Vigilance Cell had collected the petitioner's father's Secondary School Leaving Certificate dated 08.11.1952, however, it is 26/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 nowhere referred in its report and no independent findings were given in that report. The petitioner's brothers and sister were issued with Konda Reddy ST community certificate. The first respondent after furnishing the reports has directed the petitioner to submit his explanation by its letter dated 03.10.2024 and accordingly, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 25.10.2024 and 07.11.2024.
3.9 In paragraph no.16 of the order impugned, the first respondent has admitted the fact that the petitioner's school records during the year 1979-1980 in Uthukottai Boys Higher Secondary School and Secondary School cumulative record book S.No.73831 and seal found in the Secondary School cumulative record book is genuine.
3.10 Further in paragraph no.17 of the order impugned, it has been stated that the petitioner's father had studied third form in Uthukottai school, in which, caste is mentioned as Kondareddis and further observed that in the petitioner's attendance register and in the admission register maintained by school the caste is mentioned as OB Kondareddy instead of ST Kondareddy, which is nothing but a clerical mistake committed on the part 27/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 of the school authorities.
3.11 The report of the Anthropologist could only be treated as another piece of material in deciding the entire issue as held by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2022 in W.P.No.2828 of 2022.
3.12 The Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai, has sent a letter dated 26.02.2025 to the first respondent, wherein, he has stated that vigilance team has visited the petitioner's father's school and verified the register and found that some forgery has been committed at the column, where, the community of the petitioner's father was written and observed that some one has overwritten this patchwork of bit of paper with different ink and handwriting as “Kondareddis”. Such a kind of forgery cannot be done by anyone in school records, as it is a public document certainly, which cannot be altered after a lapse of 70 years by someone.
3.13 The first respondent without receiving the report from the school authority rejected the social status of the petitioner and without even affording an opportunity of hearing to him, the order impugned came to be 28/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 passed.
3.14 In the impugned order, the first respondent has stated that as per G.O.(Ms).No.1139, Social Welfare Department, dated 23.03.1982, only the Revenue Divisional Officers are vested with the power to issue ST community certificate and hence, the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Uthukottai, is not a competent authority to issue Kondareddis ST community certificate. Therefore, the community certificate dated 25.07.1982 was declared as invalid is non-application of mind. After the aforesaid G.O., two writ petitions were filed by someone before this Court, wherein, the said G.O. was challenged and got interim stay of the operation of the G.O. on 28.06.1982 and subsequently, dismissed the writ petitions on 05.11.1982. The petitioner was issued with such community certificate in between on 25.07.1982. Since the interim order was in force during the said period and he was not aware which one is the competent person at that point of time, ST community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is legally valid.
3.15 Once the Government issued an order to continue the issuance of ST community certificate by the Tahsildar on the basis of the order of this 29/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Court, the order passed by the first respondent is non-application of mind. The Government had issued a letter dated 16.09.1991, in which, it was clearly pointed out that community certificate issued by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is valid for all the purpose, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kandasamy Vs. Madras Port Trust reported in (1997) 7 SCC 505.
3.16 The case of the first respondent is not that community certificate dated 12.09.1986 is not issued by the competent authority and therefore, the flimsy reason adduced in the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The third respondent as well as the first respondent have initiated an enquiry processes after a lapse of more than 40 years and there is a possibility of school records/papers to deteriorate over time and the school authorities in order to preserve it in good condition might have done some patch work and in that case, the same cannot be construed that someone has overwritten with patchwork of bit of paper with different ink and handwriting, which is legally not proved.
3.17 As per the records available with the Revenue Department, 30/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 there is no specific “Reddiyar” community in Tamil Nadu. The word “Reddiar” denotes only a suffix name of “Konda” and there are several sub castes in the Reddiar community viz. Kappu Reddy, Kanjam Reddy, Konda Reddy, Motati Reddy, Pakanati Reddy, Chowdary Reddy, Deshmukh Reddy, Gudati Reddy, Reddy Gandla, Panta Reddy, Pedakanti Reddy, Bhoomanchi Reddy, Palanati Reddy, Velanati Reddy, etc. 3.18 The fourth respondent issued a termination order by his impugned letter dated 26.04.2025 on the basis of the approval given by the second respondent. Because of the State Level Scrutiny Committee's wrong conclusion, he is facing severe mental stress and physical hardship, as the third and fourth respondent are intending to initiate criminal action against him just before two days prior to his retirement from service. Therefore, the entire process of the respondents is not in accordance with law and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
4. The first respondent and the respondents 2 to 4 have filed their detailed counter affidavits, respectively.
31/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025
5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The points for consideration of legal issues arises in this petition are:
(1)Can there be any limitation for reviewing act of fraud on constitution?
(2)Whether a time limit should be prescribed for initiating proceedings for verification of community status or communicate certificate of an employee?
(3)Whether the O.M., dated 24.12.2020 prohibits scrutiny of caste certificate issued prior to 1995?
7. It is apposite to mention that with regard to the legal issues as to whether the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2020 prohibits the scrutiny of caste certificate issued prior to 1995 and there can be any limitation for reviewing the act of fraud on constitution, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4484 of 2021 vide order dated 24.08.2023, has delivered a split verdict. In view of the same, the case was placed before the 32/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 learned third Judge to decide the legal issues. The learned third Judge vide order dated 16.11.2023, had formulated the following points for consideration:
''(i) Whether the O.M., dated 24.12.2020 prohibits scrutiny of caste certificate issued prior to 1995?
(ii) Whether the observation in the said O.M., that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patel Vs. Additional Commissioner can be implemented only prospectively is legally sustainable?
(iii) Can there be any limitation for reviewing act of fraud on constitution?''
8. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order, in which answers to the above questions are given, are extracted hereunder:
''35. In the light of the above discussion and reasoning, the questions framed for consideration are answered as below:-
(i) Whether the O.M., dated 24.12.2020 prohibits scrutiny of caste certificate issued prior to 1995?
NO. The observations made in the said OM is misconception of the earlier OM dated 25/05/2005 and the CVC circular is general in nature. There can be no executive order prohibiting enquiry of fake or false caste 33/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 certificate which is not only a misconduct in the parlance of service jurisprudence but a crime under penal law.
(ii) Whether the observation in the said O.M., that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patel Vs. Additional Commissioner can be implemented only prospectively is legally sustainable?
No. Any interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment contrary to the spirit of the judgment is non est in law as per the decision of the constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgement rendered in Commissioner of Central Exercise -vs- Rathan Melting and wire Industries ( 2008 (13) SCC 1).
(iii) Can there be any limitation for reviewing act of fraud on constitution? Fraud vitiates every solemn Act. By executive orders limitation cannot be prescribed by acts of fraud committed against constitution and laws. The petitioner herein whose birth register entry made in the year 1958 show he belong to Hindu Man Ottan community. He had obtained community certificate from Tahsildar, Attur at Salem District as if he belongs to Kattunaiyakan community which is a Schedule Tribe. His ST certificate cancelled by the District Collector after enquiry as early as 1992 (i.e) even before Maduri Patil judgment. However the petitioner was able to manover, by filing writ petitions in sequences. He had not cooperated for enquiry conducted by State Level Scrutiny Committee. Enquiry by a senior police officer of 34/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 the rank of DSP attached to the special vigilance cell for SC/ST had unravelled several truth about the dishonest act of the petitioner which independently requires prosecution apart from confiscation of his false community certificate besides departmental proceedings.
36. As a result, the judgement of the Hon'ble Mrs. Justice N.Mala is confirmed. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
37. Since the petitioner has prevented the valuable right of public office of a Schedule Tribe Member, it is open to the State to take necessary penal action against the petitioner for offences under IPC and also under Section 3 (1)za (E) of SC /ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The second respondent/Employer is permitted to proceed against the petitioner for necessary action for recovery in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.''
9. Feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.No.4484 of 2021, the writ petitioner therein has preferred the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP. (CIVIL) Diary No. 50747/2023, in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 15.12.2023, has passed the following order:
''Delay condoned.35/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in six weeks. Until the next date of listing, operation of para 37 of the impugned order dated 16.11.2023 shall remain stayed.
We further grant liberty to the respondents to take note of the judgment in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others (2017) 8 SCC 670 and pass appropriate orders in the matter of stopping provisional pension subject to final outcome of these special leave petitions.
Pending applications stand disposed of.''
10. A careful perusal of the above order dated 15.12.2023 shows that paragraph no.37 of the order dated 16.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.4484 of 2021 alone has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
11. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also been dealt with the above legal issues in W.P.No.9995 of 2021 & 12700 of 2022 and passed an order dated 12.04.2024. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
''9.While hearing the lengthy arguments of not only the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in these three cases, but also several other counsels who have raised same legal 36/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 issues in the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the employers in all these three cases, and Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the official respondents, this Court was requested to consider the following legal issues :
(A)Whether the verification of community status of Government employee can be continued even after the retirement of employee and whether an enquiry as to the genuineness of Community Certificate would be purely academic as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v.
S.Renuka and others [SLP (C) No.24458/2019 dated 03.03.2023] ?
(B)Whether the verification of Community Certificate or community status of any individual who secured employment under SC or ST quota before 1995, can be permitted/directed ?
(C)Whether a time limit should be prescribed for initiating proceedings for verification of community status or Community Certificate of an employee ?
(D)Whether terminal benefits of employees can be withheld on account of pendency of proceedings for verification as to the genuineness of Community Certificate or community status of an employee who secure employment under SC or ST quota ?
Issue No.(A): Whether the verification of community status of Government employee can be continued even after the retirement of employee and whether an enquiry as to the genuineness of Community Certificate would be purely academic as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union 37/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 of India and another v. S.Renuka and others [SLP (C) No.24458/2019 dated 03.03.2023] ?
20.Therefore, we are unable to follow the three judgments relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, viz., Union of India and another v. S.Renuka and others [SLP (C) No.24458/2019 dated 03.03.2023], V.Vallinayagam v. The Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-II, Secretariat, Chennai [W.P.No.27823 of 2023, dated 25.09.2023] and V.Shanmugaraj v. The Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-II, Secretariat, Chennai [W.P.No.29976 of 2023, dated 03.11.2023], in view of the categorical pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments above referred to, on principles. Ratio of judgment alone is binding. It is only the reason assigned in the ratio decidendi of a judgment. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Renuka's case without considering the spirit of several judgments including larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, need not be followed. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that those three judgments may not be binding precedents as they were rendered without noticing the binding precedents on principles reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kumari Madhuri Patil, R.Vishwanatha Pillai, and Food Corporation of India (supra). Verification once started shall continue till its logical end and retirement of an employee during enquiry as to his community status does not affect the proceedings.
Issue No.(B): Whether the verification of Community 38/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Certificate or community status of any individual who secured employment under SC or ST quota before 1995, can be permitted/directed ?
32.When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rendered a judgment which is reiterated in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there cannot be an Office Memorandum which would whittle down the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is binding as a law declared in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution. When the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding not only as a precedent, but as a law declared, there cannot be an official instruction on the interpretation of the judgment so as to limit its operation. This is the mischief that was done by way of the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2020.
33.Therefore, this Court is unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that there cannot be verification of Community Certificates which were obtained prior to 1995. Equally, merely because appointment was before 1995, it cannot be said that verification in those cases cannot be done, as rightly pointed out by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice N.Mala while expressing dissenting view that this Court cannot declare or legitimise fraud committed by a person merely because he obtained the false certificate or got employment based on a false claim before 1995. It is settled that fraud vitiates every solemn transaction and there cannot be a legal sanction to condone fraud if it is committed before 1995. Therefore, irrespective of date of Community Certificate or date of appointment before or after 1995, verification as to the 39/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 genuineness of Community Certificate or claim as to one's community status shall continue to its logical end.
Issue No.(C): Whether a time limit should be prescribed for initiating proceedings for verification of community status or Community Certificate of an employee ?
37.As it was pointed out by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4, which is clarified by later judgments, no person can take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order for any other purpose, merely because he has been shown indulgence to complete his course or has secured an appointment by producing false certificate. Mere delay in making a reference does not invalidate the order on scrutiny by competent authority. Since we have held that verification can continue even after retirement of an employee, this Court finds no logic to accept the arguments of learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that there must be time limit or limitation to be prescribed.
Issue No.(D): Whether terminal benefits of employees can be withheld on account of pendency of proceedings for verification as to the genuineness of Community Certificate or community status of an employee who secure employment under SC or ST quota ?
38.This Court, in several cases, finds that the delay is caused mainly due to the recalcitrant and non-cooperative attitude of the employees who refuse to cooperate with the enquiry under some pretext or the other. Despite the Government spending huge money for establishing a machinery to verify the genuineness of the certificates or the claims as to one's 40/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 community status, the manner in which the employees adopt delaying tactics, precludes us from holding that the employee should be given benefit of his employment or terminal benefits even during the pendency of verification of community status.
39.In a case where the verification was initiated just before retirement on the basis of a stale claim or a complaint without any verifiable material, the terminal benefits of an employee cannot be withheld merely because the enquiry has been commenced. In all other cases, where delay is attributable to the conduct of employee, there must be some protection to the employer in the matter of disbursement of retirement benefits. Depending upon the individual cases, this Court can direct provisional pension to be disbursed to the employee subject to the outcome of verification process either by State Level Scrutiny Committee or by the District Level Vigilance Committee. Once a person is retired, the verification process cannot be delayed beyond three months. If the employee seeks unnecessary adjournment or refuses to appear for an enquiry, he need not be given provisional pension or retirement benefits without giving him a clean chit as to the genuineness of his claim.''
12. It is to be noted that the State Government of Tamil Nadu has constituted the District Level Vigilance Committee and State Level Scrutiny Committee and also issued guidelines to verify the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the persons belonging to the SC & ST vide 41/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 15.10.2012 (Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV- I) Department).
13. In the present case, according to the petitioner, he was issued with Konda Reddiar ST community certificate vide C.No.412/82-45 dated 25.07.1982 by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Uthukottai and latter issued a Form of Caste Certificate vide No.705/86 dated 12.09.1986 by the Tahsildar, Uthukottai. The petitioner was selected and appointed in the post of Clerk by the Railway Recruitment Board on 25.05.1987 and he was offered employment under ST quota in the office of the third respondent.
14. Further, according to the petitioner, his father A.Ramakrishna Reddy originally hailed from Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh and he had settled down in Seethanjeri Village, Uthukottai Taluk, Thiruvallur District, prior to 1950 and he had studies in a Board High School, Uthukottai, in the year 1949. The Secondary School Leaving Certificate dated 08.11.1952 issued by the Board High School, Uthukottai, reveals that his father belongs to Konda Reddy ST community. In pursuance of his father's records and due enquiries, the petitioner was issued a Konda Reddiar ST community 42/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 certificate and later on, the Form of Caste Certificate was referred to the first respondent/Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee by the third respondent on 06.10.2021 for verification of his social status. The first respondent had started its enquiry process after a period of 34 long years. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SJ & HU, Thiruvallur, had conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report dated 14.11.2022 to the Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai. However, the said report together with documents related to it were not served to the petitioner and subsequently, they had cancelled his two community certificates by proceedings dated 03.10.2023 and the same was challenged in W.P.No.29858 of 2023, in which, this Court by order dated 09.07.2024 set aside the order of the first respondent dated 03.10.2023 on the ground that the Vigilance Cell report and Anthropologists report were not served to the petitioner and remitted his case to the first respondent. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.No.29858 of 2023 dated 09.07.2024, is extracted hereunder:
“5.Since the State Level Scrutiny Committee has relied upon these two important documents in support their findings, this Court finds that the impugned order is in 43/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 violation of principles of natural justice.
6.However, genuineness of some of the documents are also to be considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee while redoing the exercise. The date seal found in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate appears to be by using the seal which was manufactured after 1980.
Since this Court is unable to sustain the impugned order on a short ground that the two important documents which are relied upon by the first respondent had not been served on the petitioner, the matter is remitted to the first respondent.
7.It is now reported before this Court that the petitioner will be served with a copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell along with annexures.
8.Learned Additional Government Pleader undertakes to handover a copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell along with the annexures in the course of the day.
9.The first respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to pass a detailed speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the second respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
15. It is seen from the records that in pursuance to the aforesaid 44/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 order of this court, a copy of the Vigilance Cell report dated 14.11.2022 and Anthropologist report dated 03.11.2022 were served to the petitioner by the first respondent on 03.10.2024. The petitioner, in turn, has submitted necessary explanation on 25.10.2024 and 07.11.2024. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 05.03.2025.
16. It is seen from the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 on basis of the Vigilance Cell report and Anthropologist report and upon personal hearing of the petitioner and the third respondent/employer, rejected the social status of the petitioner for the following reasons:
(a)The Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner's father A.Ramakrishna Reddy for the academic years 1950-51 to 1952-53, wherein, his religion and caste has been recorded as Hindu Konda Reddy. In the said certificate, the hand written word “Konda Reddy” appears different from that of the other words.
(b)The community certificate of the individual dated 25.07.1982 has been clearly recorded as “Konda Reddiar” community. As per the presidential orders in force, there is no community by name “Konda Reddiar” notified in any caste lists of Tamil Nadu State.
(c)The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur, letter dated 45/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 12.09.1986 and Tahsildar, Uthukottai, letter dated 17.03.2022 and Sub-
Collector, Thiruvallur, letter dated 08.11.2022 and District Collector letter dated 21.09.2021 have stated that local enquiry reveals that the individual belongs to Kappu Reddy (OC) community and the family members does not reside in Seethanjeri Village for the past 20 years.
(d)The Anthropologist has reported that individual belongs to individual belongs to Reddiyar Backward Community.
17. It is also relevant to refer paragraph nos.16 to 19 of the order impugned dated 05.03.2025, which is extracted hereunder:
“16) As per the order dated 09.07.2024 pronounced in W.P.No.29858 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.29469 of 2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights, District Police Office Tiruvallur has been requested to examine and enquire in the matter of seal found in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of Thiru A.R. Suthakaran, vide Government Letter dated 07 10 2024. In this regard, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights, District police Office, Tiruvallur has stated that the Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvallur after examination of the secondary school cumulative record book has reported in his letter dated: 24.10 2024 that Thiru AR Suthakaran S/o Thiru Ramakrishna Reddy has studied 46/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 10th standard during the year 1979-1980 in Uthukottai boys Higher Secondary school and his secondary school cumulative record book Serial No is 73831 and further he has stated that the seal found in the secondary school cumulative record book is Genuine.
17) The Collector, Tiruvallur has stated in his letter dated:
24.02.2025 that Thiru Ramakrishna Reddy S/o Lakshmana Reddy has studied third form in Uthukottai school in which caste is mentioned as Kondareddis. However, in the attendance register in respect of Thiru A.R Suthakaran who studied 9th A in June 1978 in which caste is mentioned as BC, and in the admission register maintained by school in which his caste is mentioned as OB Kondareddy.
18) The Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer Integral Coach Factory, Chennai in his letter dated 26.02 2025 has stated that Vigilance team has visited the Government Boys High School at Uthukottai on 21.02 2025 where Shri A. Ramakrishnan, father of Shri A.R. Suthakaran studied. On enquiry with the Head master of the school, he has informed that, Shri AR Suthakaran has sought a document to prove his community viz., copy of TC register wherein it was mentioned with the community his father belongs. This register was verified by our vigilance team and found that some forgery has been done at the column where the community of Shri A. Ramakrishnan was written Someone has overwritten with patchwork of bit of paper with different ink and handwriting as "Kondareddis This clearly shows the mal- 47/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 intention of the individual in proving the wrong community which he belongs.
19) The report of Collector. Tiruvallur revealed that Thiru. Ramakrishna Reddy S/o Lakshmana Reddy has studied third form in Uthukottai school in which caste is mentioned as Kondareddis and his son Thiru. A.R Suthakaran's caste is mentioned as BC and OB Kondareddy The Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai in his letter dated 26.02.2025 has stated that the TC register of Thiru A.Ramakrishna Reddy father of Thiru. A.R. Suthakaran verified and found that some forgery has been done at the column where the community of Shri A. Ramakrishnan was written Someone has overwritten with patchwork of bit of paper with different ink and handwriting as "Kondareddis" Hence the TC register of Thiru. A. Ramakrishnan father of Thiru. A.R. Suthakaran cannot be considered as a valid document.”
18. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has chosen to submit various documents in support of his case relating to community status before the third respondent, who, in turn had conducted investigation with respect of the petitioner's B.Sc., application to the college concerned, admission application of the petitioner's son and daughter to the school concerned and also the Transfer Certificate of the petitioner's brother issued 48/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 by the college concerned. In this regard, the first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, the relevant portion of which, is extracted hereunder:
“VII. As per the report No.ICF/VIG/2021/ARS, dated
19.02.2025 from the Chief Vigilance Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai, it has been stated that after verifying various documents submitted by the petitioner and thorough investigation, it has been found that the caste certificate of the petitioner is 'not genuine' The report has further enclosed the investigation details due to which it had arrived to the conclusion, which are as follows, i.In the petitioner's B.Sc application to Sir Theagaraya College, there were corrections made in different handwriting against the community column.
ii.In the admission application form of the petitioner's son A.S Girithar at SBOA Matriculation School, Anna Nagar, Chennai, the petitioner has declared that the caste of his son as 'OC (Konda Reddy) Similarly, in his Transfer Certificate issued by the school after std. XII, his caste is mentioned as 'OC (Konda Reddy)'.
iii.In the admission application form of the petitioner's daughter. AS Shusmitha at SBOA Matriculation School, Anna Nagar, Chennai, the petitioner has declared that the 49/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 caste of his daughter as 'Hindu- OC' Similarly, in his Transfer Certificate issued by the school after std. XII, his caste is mentioned as 'OC (Konda Reddy)'.
iv.In the X Standard, XII Standard and Sir Theagaraya College TC issued to A.Sekar, petitioner's own brother, the caste was mentioned as Hindu Reddy (not Konda Reddy).”
19. Further, it is apropos to refer the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 to 4, the relevant portion of which, is extracted hereunder:
“12. With regard to the averment in Para 8 of the petition that. My brothers and sister were issued with Konda Reddy ST community certificate, but the vigilance cell have failed to appreciate the same and summarily rejected it without discussing the same its report would show that the enquiry officer has acted with malafide intention it is humbly submitted that during investigation by ICF vigilance, the certificates of Shri A. Sekar, own younger brother of Shri A.R Suthakaran were verified and found the following facts.
(a) In Xth Std TC issued to Shri A Sekar by the same school where Shri A.R. Suthakaran studied, the caste is mentioned as Hindu Reddy (not Konda Reddy) (Annexure-R1).
(b) In XIIth Std TC issued to Shri A Sekar by the same school where Shri A.R Suthakaran studied, it is mentioned as Hindu 50/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Reddy only (Annexure-R2).
(c) In the TC issued to Shri A. Sekar by the same college (Sir Theagaraya College, Chennai) where Shri A.R. Suthakaran studied also, the caste is mentioned as Hindu Reddy (Annexure-R3).
14. With regard to the averment in Para 11 of the Petition that 'The Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer Integral Coach Factory, Chennai has sent a letter dated 26.02.2025 to the 1st respondent wherein he stated that vigilance team has visited my father's school and verified the register and found that some forgery has been done at the column where the community of my father was written. Someone has overwritten with patch work of bit of paper with different ink and handwriting as Kondareddis. The Vigilance team of the 3rd respondent has failed to disprove my social status in the manner known to law and alleging that some has overwritten with patch work of bit of paper with different ink and handwriting as Kondareddis is not established by the employer team with concrete proof. It may be noted that such a kind of forgery cannot be done by anyone in the school records as it was a public document certainly which cannot be altered after lapse of 70 years by someone, it is respectfully submitted that, in order to ascertain the antecedents and community status of Shri A.Ramakrishnan, 51/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 father of Shri A.R. Suthakaran, the ICF Vigilance Team conducted a fact-finding visit to the Government Boys High School, Uthukkottai on 21.02 2025.
16. With regard to averment in Para 16 of the Petition that "The 3rd respondent as well as 1st respondent have initiated an enquiry process after a lapse of more than 40 years and there is a possibility that the school records/paper will deteriorate over time and whether school authority will preserve it in good condition or doing some patch work if not in good state and it cannot be construed that someone has overwritten with patchwork of bit of paper with different ink and handwriting which is legally not proved, it is humbly submitted that, it is agreed that the collected forged document (Annexure-R4) is aged more than 40 years and there is a possibility of deterioration over time Upon meticulous examination of the document, it is observed that certain portions of the page contain paper patches, ostensibly affixed to preserve the physical integrity of the register These preservation patches are of irregular size and shape, consistent with adhoc repairs typically seen in old records However, the patch covering the column indicating the community status of Shri A Ramakrishnan is markedly different in nature The patchwork was done using a piece of same paper from the register, or a similar one, evidently with 52/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 the intent to evade detection upon casual inspection. However, a careful visual examination reveals the patch work due to the misalignment of the blue ruled lines. It is pertinent to note that a black-and-white photocopy of the document would invariably fail to capture the nuances of the specific patchwork, thereby obscuring critical indicators of tampering and making the act of forgery less detectable. This deliberate and concealed alteration strongly indicates a premeditated act of forgery aimed at suppressing the original entry. A careful visual inspection of the aforesaid document in colour photocopy would suffice for any person of ordinary prudence to readily distinguish between the irregular, genuine patchwork affixed for preservation purposes and the meticulously crafted patch, which has been deliberately concealed to falsify the original entry relating to community status. Hence, the averment in Para 16 of the Petition is denied.”
20. According to the petitioner, it is nothing but a clerical mistake committed on the part of the school authorities. Once the District Administration as well as school authorities have confirmed that the petitioner's family belongs to Konda Reddy ST community, the report of the Anthropologist is only a supportive document and it cannot be a conclusive 53/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 document. Further, according to the petitioner, the Vigilance team of the third respondent has failed to disprove his social status in the manner know to law and alleging that someone has overwritten with patch work of bit of paper with different ink and handwriting is not established with concrete proof. Further, according to the petitioner, such a kind of forgery cannot be done by anyone in school records, as it is a public document certainly, which cannot be altered after a lapse of 70 years by someone. Further, according to the petitioner, the first respondent without receiving the report from the school authority, where, his father studied or expert committee report in this regard, cannot simple reject his social status on the basis of the letter issued by the third respondent's Vigilance team.
21. It is contended by the first respondent that after verification of reports and documents, it has been arrived at a conclusion that in the petitioner's B.Sc. application to Sir Theagaraya College, there were corrections made in different handwriting against the community column. In the admission application form of the petitioner's son at SBOA Matriculation School, Anna Nagar, Chennai, the petitioner has declared the caste of his son as 'OC Konda Reddy'. In the admission application form of the 54/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 petitioner's daughter at SBOA Matriculation School, Anna Nagar, Chennai, the petitioner has declared the caste of his daughter as 'Hindu – OC'. Similarly, in the Transfer Certificate issued by the school, the petitioner's daughter's caste is mentioned as 'OC (Konda Reddy)'. In X and XII standard and Sir Theagaraya College Transfer Certificates issued to the petitioner's own brother A.Sekar, the caste was mentioned as 'Hindu Reddy'.
22. It is contended by the respondents 2 to 4 that in order to ascertain the antecedents and community status of the father of the petitioner A.Ramakrishnan, the Integral Coach Factory Vigilance team has conducted a fact finding visit to the Government Boys High School, Uthukottai, on 21.02.2025. Further, it is contended that it is agreed that the collected forged document is aged more than 40 years and there is a possibility of deterioration over time. Upon meticulous examination of the document, it was observed that certain portions of the page contain paper patches, ostensibly affixed to preserve the physical integrity of the register. These preservation patches are of irregular size and shape, consistent with adhoc repairs typically seen in old records. However, the patch covering the 55/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 column indicating the community status of A.Ramakrishnan is markedly different in nature. The patch work was done using a piece of same paper from the register, or a similar one, evidently with the intent to evade detection upon casual inspection. It is contended that a careful visual examination reveals that the patch work due to to the misalignment of the blue ruled lines that a black-and-white photocopy of the document would invariably fail to capture the nuances of the specific patchwork, thereby, obscuring critical indicators of tampering and making the act of forgery less detectable. This deliberate and concealed alteration strongly indicates a premeditated act of forgery aimed at suppressing the original entries.
23. It is pertinent to mention that the third respondent/employer i.e. Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, has sent a letter dated 26.02.2025 to the first respondent, wherein, it has been stated that the vigilance team visited the Government Boys High School at Uthukottai, where the petitioner's father viz. A.Ramakrishnan studied. On enquiry with the Head Master of the school, he has informed that the petitioner has sought a document to prove his community viz. copy of Transfer Certificate and register, in which, 56/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 community of the petitioner's father was mentioned. The said vigilance team found that some forgery has been done at the column, where, the community of the said A.Ramakrishna was written, in that, someone has overwritten with patchwork of bit of paper with different ink and handwriting as “Konda Reddis”. The abovesaid findings were arrived at by the said vigilance team based on the documents and the same shall not be quashed. It is a serious issue of fraud on constitution. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is an enmity or vengeance on him by his employer and it is also not the case of the petitioner that the third respondent's vigilance team has no authority to conduct investigation/enquiry on community status of the petitioner.
24. It is to be noted that the burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant and he has to produce all requisite documents in support his claim. The State Level Scrutiny committee performs the role of verification of caste claim and therefore, can only scrutinize the documents and materials produced by the applicant. In case the material produced by the applicant does not prove his claim, the scrutiny committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove his claim, until otherwise, any extraordinary circumstances warranted and any judicial order so directs it to 57/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 collect/gather evidence.
25. Keeping in mind and by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 12.04.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.9995 of 2021 & 12700 of 2022 and order dated 24.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.4484 of 2021, it is clear that there cannot be any time limitation for conducting verification of community certificate, the O.M. dated 24.12.2020 also does not prohibit scrutiny of caste certificate issued prior to 1995 and by executing orders limitation cannot be prescribed by acts of fraud committed against constitution and laws.
26. I am of the opinion that there is no comprehensive statutory framework in our State of Tamil Nadu governing the issuance, verification and regulation of the community certificates, whereas, in this regard, several States in India have enacted a dedicated legislation that provides statutory provision for procedural aspect to deter the misuse or fraud claim of community certificate as in State of Andhra Pradesh has enacted the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) 58/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (Act No.16 of 1993). Likewise, other States like Telangana, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Chattishgarh, Gujarat and Goa have also enacted the similar Acts.
27. In the instant case on hand, the State Level Scrutiny Committee has conducted a detailed enquiry and the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2024 has also been complied with. Further, the State Level Scrutiny Committee has also relied upon two documents viz. letter of the District Collector dated 24.02.2025 and the letter of the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai, dated 26.02.2025 in support their findings. Once the above documents are disputed by the petitioner, then, the first respondent ought to have served the copy of aforesaid two documents to the petitioner and an opportunity might be provided to submit his explanation, before passing the order impugned. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 05.03.2025 on the above aspects is against the principles of natural justice.
28. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to issue the following directions: 59/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 ➢ The first respondent shall furnish the copy of the letter dated 24.02.2025 addressed by the District Collector, Tiruvallur and the copy of the letter dated 26.02.2025 addressed by the Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai, to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
➢ Upon receiving the same, the petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the aforesaid two letters.
➢ Thereafter, the first respondent shall pass a detailed speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the third respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the explanation from the petitioner.
➢ It is made clear that the first respondent shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court.
With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed.
(J.N.B., J.)(M.J.R., J.) 20.08.2025 nsd Index:Yes Speaking Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes To:
1. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III 60/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Joint Director / Establishment (Res), Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Room No.154-A, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai-600 038.
4. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer/G, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai-600 038.W.P.No.18212 of 2025
J.NISHA BANU, J., and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J., Today, (20.08.2025), this writ petition is listed for pronouncement of orders.
2. The Writ Petition came to be allowed by me. After pronouncement of orders by me, Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jothiraman, 61/63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm ) W.P.No.18212 of 2025 pronounced the order, disposed of the Writ Petition.
3. In view of the contradictory views taken in the present case by us, Registry is directed to place this matter before the Honourable Chief Justice, for further action in this regard.
(J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
20.08.2025
ar
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
62/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm )
W.P.No.18212 of 2025
W.P.No.18212 of 2025
20.08.2025
63/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 04:16:28 pm )