Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

R.SUBBIAH,J.

This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order passed by the respondent committee in its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.H1/17577/2007, dated 08.12.2007.

2.The petitioner herein is holding the post of President of Pallapatty Village panchayat. The Pallapatty panchayat has been notified as a reserve panchayat for the post of President. Since the petitioner belonged to Hindu Adi- Dravida by caste, she filed her nomination. One Rani also contested as her rival candidate. In the said election, the petitioner won the post of village President. The said Rani who lost in the election filed election original petition against the petitioner's election. That apart, the said Rani has also given a petition to the District Collector against the petitioner as if the petitioner is a Christian and hence, she does not belong to scheduled caste community. The said Rani also filed writ petition before this Court and obtained orders against the authorities. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the issue with regard to the community of the petitioner was taken up by the first respondent committee and notice for appearance was also issued to the petitioner for enquiry. The petitioner personally appeared before the first respondent committee and explained her status as she belonged to Hindu Adi Dravida community. The petitioner was given in marriage to one Jeyasingh, who belonged to Hindu Parayan community and hence she produced many documents in the enquiry to support her claim before the first respondent committee. But the first respondent committee passed the order dated 8.12.2007 stating that she belongs to Christian Parayan community. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4.It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner belonged to Hindu Adidravidar community and that she was married to one Jeyasingh who belonged to Hindu Parayan community. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to three children and all of them are living as Hindus. To substantiate the contention, the petitioner has also produced photos of her marriage function.

5.Per contra, it is the submission of the second respondent that the name of the petitioner is Esther in the transfer certificate given by the Government High School, Pallapatti village, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District and the name of the petitioner was mentioned only as Jaya @ Esther. She has also not changed her name as Esther through Government Gazette. The petitioner's mother belongs to Christian Parayar and hence she belongs to backward community. Though the second respondent vehemently contended that the petitioner belongs to Christian religion, the second respondent has not denied the fact that the petitioner married one Jeyasingh, who belongs to Hindu Parayan community. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the main reason given by the first respondent/committee for cancelling the certificate of the petitioner is that the petitioner's sister marriage was performed as per Christian rituals. The petitioner had changed her name from Esther to Jeya. In our considered opinion, the reason assigned by the committee for cancelling the community certificate is not sound in nature. Particularly in the circumstance, the fact that the petitioner got married one Jeyasingh, who belonged to Hindu Parayan community as per Hindu rituals was not denied. Moreover, the first respondent/Committee has not taken any effort to find out whether the petitioner got baptism or not which is a crucial aspect to come to a conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Parayan community. Hence, we are of the opinion, the first respondent/committee has not passed the impugned order based on any credible evidence. In this regard, useful reference could be placed to a judgment reported in (2010) 8 MLJ 739 SC (M.Chandra V.M.Thangamuthu and another). The dictum laid down in the said judgment states that the person who professes a religion different from Hindu and Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

6.In the instant case also, the petitioner had asserted that she got married to a person who belongs to Hindu Parayan community and she is leading life as per the Hindu customs and the same was not disputed by the first respondent committee. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion, the community certificate cancelled by the first respondent/committee is purely based on the irrelevant consideration and not based on a relevant consideration.

7.In the absence of any document to show that the petitioner got baptized, we do not find any valid reason to cancel the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the first respondent/committee is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.