Khrienuo Angami v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:10.08.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHW.P.No.3072 of 2008andM.P.No.1 of 2008 Khrienuo Angami.. PetitionerVs1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,rep. by its Secretary to Government,Education Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009,2.Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board,rep. by its Chairman,IV Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai,College Road, Chennai-600 008. .. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecords of the respondents, especially the second respondent relatingto his proceedings made in R.C.No.1030/A6/2006, dated 18.12.2007 andquash the same as null and void and invalid and consequently todirect the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as 'Lecturer'in the Department of Botony on the strength of her selection underScheduled Tribe quota in any one of the available vacancies with allattendant benefits.For Petitioner : Mr.A.Amal Raj,For Respondents : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan (G.A).O R D E RThe petitioner herein originally hails from the State ofNagaland. She has undergone her school studies upto the 10th standardin the State of Nagaland. Thereafter, she joined the school in thestate of Tamil Nadu and completed her school and college education.The petitioner has also obtained M.Sc., Decree in Botony.Thereafter, the petitioner has finished M.Phil., in the University of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madras. After finishing the same, she wrote an examination for thepost of lecturer in the Department of Botony conducted by the secondrespondent herein namely Tamilnadu Teachers Recruitment Board.However a letter was sent by the second respondent to the petitioneron 18.12.2007 stating that the provisional selection of thepetitioner under the SC category is canceled, in view of the factthat the Community Certificate produced by the petitioner shows thatthe said Certificate was not issued by the competent authority withinthe State of Tamil Nadu. The said impugned letter further statesthat the candidates, who obtained Community Certificate from anyother States other than the Tamil Nadu will be considered only underthe General category alone. The petitioner contending that CommunityCertificate obtained from the State of Nagaland as the one belongingto Schedule Tribe category, this Writ Petition is filed seekingappointment under the Schedule Tribe category.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it isnot in dispute that the petitioner is a Schedule Tribe candidatehailing from the State of Nagaland. The learned counsel for thepetitioner further stated that even the guidelines issued by theUniversity of Madras would show that the candidates from other Stateshall be considered under the General turn except Scheduled Caste andSchedule Tribe category. The learned counsel for the petitionerfurther submitted that in as much as there is no specific bar underthe prospectus, the petitioner cannot be denied the status ofSchedule Tribe candidate after allowing a seat for the examinationand after provisional selection of her for the post of Lecturer tothe Department of Botony. The learned counsel for the petitioneralso relied upon Judgment reported in 2006 (3) TLNJ 94 (Civil),Dr.M.Vennila Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in support ofthe case of the petitioner and contended that in the absence of anyprohibition under the prospectus, a candidate cannot be denied theright accrued to her. The learned counsel for the petitioner alsorelied upon the Judgment reported in 2005 (3) SCC S.Pushpa and OthersVs Sivachanmugavelu and others and AIR 1992 Gujarat 42 State ofGujarat and another Vs R.L.Patel, and submits that the candidatebelonging to Schedule Tribe in some other States, has to be treatedas a candidate belonging to the migrant states. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon theJudgment reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 334 Purushottam Vs. Chairman,M.S.E.B. and another and contends that the selected candidate has tobe given appointment and the same cannot be taken away. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner finally relied upon the Judgment 2005 (3)CTC 658, R.Venu Vs. The State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretaryto Government, Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai and Others, wherein this Court has considered thefacts to be taken out while qualifying the Schedule Tribe communityin one State by the community of another State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Pleader per contra submitted that theprospectus is very specific that the Schedule Tribe caste candidatewill have to get the Certificate within a time given under theprospectus from the competent authority mentioned therein. Accordingto the learned Government Pleader, the Judgments relied upon thecounsel for petitioner are infact against the petitioner, since thepetitioner cannot contend against the specific clause provided in theprospectus. The learned Government Pleader further contended thatthe guidelines issued by the Government by way of number ofGovernment Orders clearly state the authority, who can issue suchcertificates and further submitted that the State is the onlyauthority in whose jurisdiction if a candidate resides over the yearsto issue Community Certificates. 5. The learned Government Pleader strongly relied upon theJudgment of Constitutional Bench reported in 1994 (5) SCC 244, Stateof Maharashtra Vs. Union of India and submitted that ScheduleTribe/Scheduled Caste candidates cannot carry any status from theState of his origin to the migrant State. The learned GovernmentPleader further submitted that in the present case, Government hastaken a policy decision that the Schedule Tribe candidate from otherStates will not be considered as Schedule Tribe and Scheduled Castecandidates of the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government Pleaderproduced a copy of the guidelines issued by the Public ServiceCommission, in which Clause No.9 of the guidelines specificallyprovides as mentioned by the Government Pleader. Further, the letterissued by the Government addressed to the Education Department, afterreferring to the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.358, dated03.10.2007 specifically states that the persons coming from otherStates will be considered only under the General Category. Hence,the Government Pleader submits in view of the above said specificprovisions, the request of the petitioner has to be rejected.Further even under General category, the case of the petitionercannot be considered, since marks obtained is very low.6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. As rightly submitted by the Government Pleader, the issueraised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been answered bythe Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgmentreported on (1994) 5 SCC 244 State of Maharashtra vs. Union of India.In para 8 of the said judgmentIn course of time persons belonging to ScheduledCastes/Scheduled Tribes who had migrated from one Stateto another in search of employment or for educationpurposes and the like, experienced great difficulty inobtaining Caste/Tribe Certificates from the State fromwhich they had migrated. To remove this difficulty https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ experienced by them the earlier instructions containedin the letter of 22.03.1977, and the subsequent letterof 29.03.1982, were modified, in that, the prescribedauthority of a State/Union Certificate to a person whohad migrated from another State on production of agenuine certificate issued to his father by theprescribed authority of the State of the father'sorigin except where the prescribed authority considereda detailed enquiry necessary through the State oforigin before issue of certificate. It was furtherstated that the certificate will be issued irrespectiveof whether the Caste/Tribe in question is scheduled ornot in relation to the State/Union Territory to whichthe person has migrated. Of course, this facility didnot alter the Scheduled Caste/Tribe status of theperson in relation to the one or the other State. Therevised form of the certificate was circulated.Further, it was clarified that a Scheduled Caste/Tribeperson who has migrated from the State of origin tosome other State for the purpose of education,employment, etc., will be deemed to be ScheduledCaste/Tribe of the State of his origin only and will beentitled to derive benefits from that State and notfrom the State to which he had migrated. By thisclarificatory order forwarded to Chief Secretaries ofall States/Union Territories, the only facilityextended was that the prescribed authority of theState/Union Territory to which a person had migratedwas permitted to issue the certificate to the migranton production of the genuine certificate issued to hisfather by the prescribed authority of the State of thefather's origin provided that the prescribed authoritycould always enquire into the matter through the Stateof origin if he entertained any doubt. The certificateto be so issued would be in relation to the State/Unionterritory from which the person concerned had migratedand not in relation to the State/Union Territory towhich he had migrated. Therefore, the migrant wouldnot be entitled to derive benefits in the State towhich he had migrated on the strength of such acertificate. This was reiterated in a subsequentletter dated 15.10.1987 addressed to Smt. Shashi Misra,Secretary, Social Welfare, etc., in the State ofMaharashtra. In paragraph 4 of that letter it wasspecifically stated:"Further, a Scheduled Caste person, who hasmigrated from the State of his origin, which isconsidered to be his ordinary place of residenceafter the issue of the first Presidential Order, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1950, can get benefit from the State of his originand not from the State to which he has migrated."So stating the proposal regarding reduction in theperiod of cut-off point of 1950 for migration wasspurned. It was stated that the proposal could havebeen taken care of only if the lists of ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes were made on all-Indiabasis which, it was said, was not feasible in view ofthe provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of theConstitution. It will thus, be seen that so far asthe Government of India is concerned , since the dateof issuance of the communication dated 22.03.1977, ithas firmly held the view that a ScheduledCaste/Scheduled Tribe person who migrates from theState of his origin to another State in search ofemployment or for educational purposes or the like,cannot be treated as a person belonging to theScheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of the State to whichhe migrates and hence he cannot claim benefit as suchin the latter State.The above said Judgment makes it clear that a person hailing from oneState will not carry his status of Schedule Tribe to the migrantState. Of course it is for the migrant State to consider the fact asto whether a particular community from other State can be taken as aSchedule Tribe/Scheduled caste person in the migrant State. Furtherin the present case on hand, the guideline issued by the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission as well as the Government Order relied uponby the learned Government Pleader would clear show that all thecandidates coming from other States and seeking appointments in theState of Tamil Nadu will only be considered under the generalcategory. Further, the guidelines relied upon by the learned counselfor the petitioner issued by the University of Madras also does notsupport the case of the petitioner and the said guideline cannot bindthe Government and it is only for the purpose of undergoing studiesand not for the purpose of appointing a person to the post.Therefore, the guidelines relied upon by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is not applicable to the present case.8. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that prospectus issued by the respondents does notprohibit the appointment of candidates to the post of Lecturer isconcerned, the said contention also does not hold good. A Reading ofthe contents of the prospectus would clearly shows that the communitycertificate will have to be obtained on or before the last date ofsubmission of the Application Form. The said prospectus also statesabout the authorities from whom the said certificate is to beobtained. Admittedly the petitioner has not obtained the saidcertificate. The prospectus will have to be read as a whole. In theJudgment reported in 2006 (3) TLNJ 94, Dr.M.Vennila Vs. Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Public Service Commission, rep. by Deputy Secretary GovernmentEstate, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002, the Hon'ble Division Bench ofthis Court has held that the prospectus is having force of law andthe same is pending on the authorities. Therefore as rightlycontended by the learned Government Pleader the petitioner cannotclaim that she should be treated as Schedule Tribe candidate. Moreover the selection of the petitioner is only provisional and hencethe said selection will not confer the petitioner a vested rightseeking for an appointment. 9. The Judgment relied only the learned counsel for thepetitioner reported in AIR 1992 Gujarat 42, State of Gujarat andAnother Vs. R.L. Patel, is also not applicable to the present case.In the Judgment reported in 2005 (3) SCC Page-1, the Union Territoryof Pondicherry, S.Pushpa and Others Vs. Sivachanmugavelu and Others,has taken as stand that it is following the Policy of the CentralGovernment. In the said case there was no separate reservation forthe Union Territory. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court the policy of the Central Government was followed inthe absence of any provision making a specific reservation for theSchedule Tribe/Scheduled Caste community by the Union Territory.However in the present case, a specific policy has been adopted bythe State Government treating the candidates from other States underthe General Category irrespective of their community in the otherstate. It is a well settled principles of law that Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India the Court cannot question the wisdom ofState Government, which evolves a policy. The decision of the StateGovernment in conferring the status of the outside candidates bykeeping them under General Category is one of the policy decision andhence the same cannot be interfered.10. Similarly the Judgment relied upon the learned counsel in JT1999 (9) SC 334 Purushottam Vs. Chairman, M.S.E.B. and Another alsocannot be applied to the present case, since in the said case thepetitioner was not given appointment on the ground that the ScreeningCommittee was dissolved and therefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court heldthat the selected candidate cannot be denied the post. Similarly theJudgment reported in 2005 (3) CTC 658, R.Venu Vs. The State LevelScrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government, Adi-dravidar andTribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and Others,relates to the issue of consideration of classification of communityfrom one State to another State by the Screening Committee. Hencethe above said facts are also different from the present case andhence the same are not applicable.11. Coming of the merits of the case, as submitted the learnedGovernment Pleader even on merits the petitioner stands to lose andtherefore even under the General Category she cannot be considered.Hence, taking into consideration the factual position as well as thevarious decision of this Court no case is made out. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. Accordingly the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.13. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petitionwill not stand in the way of Writ Petitioner approaching theappropriate authority seeking for valuation of her CommunityCertificate.krk Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,rep. by its Secretary to Government,Education Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009,2.Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board,rep. by its Chairman,IV Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai,College Road, Chennai-600 008.+ 1 cc to Mr. A. Amalraj Advocate SR.37348+ 1 cc to Government Pleader SR.37616W.P.No.3072 of 2008MDR(CO)EU 22.09.2009.