Madras High Court
Dr. G. Elango vs Madras Port Trust on 14 June, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1992)IILLJ793MAD
ORDER
1. The above writ petition has been field for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in his Memo No. PI/613/84/H dated November 15, 1984 and consequently direct the respondents to act upon the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar which has been already produced by the petitioner.
2. It is unnecessary at this stage to deal with the various factual claims in the affidavit for adjudicating the issue involved before me. The respondents have ripped a counter affidavit and the stand taken therein is, that there is nothing wrong in the employer calling upon the petitioner to produce a community certificate from a Revenue Divisional Officer.
3. It is not in dispute that a Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in S. P. Sakthi Devi v. The Collector of Salem, Salem, etc. 98. L.W. 104 categorically held that the order of the State Government obliging the production of a community certificate in respect of certain communities including Konda Reddies Community from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned is to be confined in its application to employment under the State Government and the State Government Undertakings. The Division Bench also declared the position that so far as the employment under the Central Government and the Central Government Undertakings is concerned, the instructions of the Central Government contained in the Brochure reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe services alone apply, according to which the production of a community certificate from the Tahsildar concerned is enough. Consequently, the certificate produced from the Tahsildar constitutes sufficient compliance in law and the direction of the respondents to the petitioner to produce a community certificate from a different authority is contrary to law and in excess of the jurisdiction and the authority vested in the Respondent. Hence the writ petition has to be allowed to this limited extent of quashing the impugned proceedings.
4. The fact that the writ petition is allowed as above shall not deprive the respondents from taking appropriate action as pointed out by Division Bench in the judgment referred to above and in accordance with the procedure contained in the Brochure itself, to have the correctness of the certificate referred to by the District Collector concerned and if the District Collector cancels or sets aside the certificate issued already in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar, to take appropriate action on that basis against the petitioner. Till then, the petitioner should be taken to have complied with the requirement of law in the production of the community certificate from the Tahsildar. With these observations and liberty to the respondents, the writ petition shall allowed; but there will be no order as to costs.