Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4)The Common Order of The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian dated 10.01.2013 in W.P.(MD)Nos.3745 and 7893 of 2012 [M.Younus V. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissioner and another]

8. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that since the community certificate issued to the petitioner that she belongs to Labbai sect is intact and it is issued by the competent authority, the same cannot be rejected by the TNPSC as held by the Full Bench of this Court in TNPSC V. R.Manikandan reported in (2011) 6 MLJ 609 and the TNPSC has no option but to give appointment to the petitioner based on the community certificate, and the TNPSC could, at the most, state that the appointment of the petitioner is subject to the verification of the genuineness of the community certificate. That is, the genuineness has to be gone into by the concerned competent authority and the TNPSC has no role on the same.

10.1. The learned counsel for the TNPSC made elaborate submissions and also produced a typed-set of papers running to 56 pages. 10.2. She submitted that the TNPSC treated the petitioner, being a converted Labbai Muslim, as "Others", as per the directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Government in Letters dated 04.02.2010 and 22.08.2012 to the effect that the converts from Hinduism to Islam shall be treated as "Others" and the TNPSC is bound by the directions issued by the Government, in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the status of Backward Class. 10.3. She further submitted that the Converted Ansar Muslims / Converted Dekkani Muslims / Converted Dudekula Muslims / Converted Labbais, Rowther, Marakayar Muslims / Converted Mapilla Muslims / Converted Sheik Muslims / Converted Syed Muslims are not included in the list III which classifies Backward Class Muslims. That is, according to her, the word "Converted" is absent in List III of G.O.Ms.No.85, while in List II, the word "Converted" is specifically mentioned in the case of Christians. According to her, the born Muslims as Ansar / Dekkani Muslims / Dudekula / Labbais, Rowther, Marakayar / Mapilla / Sheik / Syed alone are classified as Backward Muslims. 10.4. The learned Counsel for the TNPSC heavily relied on the judgment of The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Chandru in Ruhaiyah Begum's case, wherein, the learned Judge was not inclined to accept the judgment dated 10.01.2013 in W.P.(MD)Nos.9150 and 10859 of 2012 (filed by the petitioner in the present case) rendered by The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian and the judgment of The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma in M.Raja Mohammed's case. According to her, the views of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Chandru is correct and the same may be followed by this Court and she particularly relied on paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in Ruhaiyah Begum's case, wherein, the learned Judge has held that the State shall undertake an exercise to decide as to whether the converted Muslims becomes Backward Muslims and in the absence of "converted Muslim" is included in the Backward Classes List, the converted Muslims cannot claim Backward Class status.

40.2. The common order dated 10.01.2013 in Younus's case of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian is also confirmed by a Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar and Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Devadass in the judgment in Chairman, TNPSC Vs. M.Younus reported in (2014) 1 MLJ 232. The Division Bench, while confirming the order, issued a direction to the TNPSC to give appointment to the petitioner therein giving liberty to the TNPSC to verify the genuineness of the community certificate as held by the Full Bench in TNPSC V. V.R.Manikandan, (2011) 6 MLJ 609, if the TNPSC had any doubt over the genuineness of the same.

44.(i) However, learned counsel for the TNPSC has circulated the judgment of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian in Yasmine V. The Secretary, TNPSC reported in 2013(4) CTC 53, wherein, in the last three lines in paragraph 20, it was held as hereunder:

"20. ..... The decision rendered by me in W.P.Nos.9150 and 10859 of 2012 dated 10.01.2013 does not appear to represent the correct position of law."

44.(ii). The order in Younus's case and the order dated 10.01.2013 in W.P.(MD)Nos.9150 and 10859 of 2012 are verbatim the same and on identical terms. The TNPSC was a party in both the proceedings. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar and the Hon'ble Mr.justice P.Devadass confirmed the order dated 10.01.2013 of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian in Younus's case on 04.06.2013 in W.A.(MD)Nos.459 and 460 of 2013 (Chairman, TNPSC V. M.Younus and Another reported in (2014) 1 MLJ 232). But the same was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge when the judgment in Yasmine's case was delivered on 13.06.2013.