Selvi M.Shyamala v. Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 06.01.2009 Coram :The Hon’ble Mr. Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAOandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.7297 of 2004Selvi M.Shyamala… Petitionervs.1. Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee rep. by its Chariman Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. District Vigilance Committee Tiruvannamalai District, rep. by its Chairman, Tiruvannamalai.3. The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.4.The Dean, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu... RespondentsWrit Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari tocall for the records of the first respondent, pertaining to theproceeding No.27645/ADW II/2003, dated 27.02.2004 and quash thesame. For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narain Senior Counsel for Mr.S.RagahavanFor Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramaniam Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RS.TAMILVANAN, J.This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of writof certiorari to call for the records relating to the order ofthe first respondent, dated 27.02.2004, made in ProceedingNo.27645/ADW II/2003 and quash the same.2. The writ petitioner herein was the appellant before theTamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent herein.It is seen that the community certificate issued by theThasildar, Polur Taluk vide No.1363595, dated 01.09.1998,stating that she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community ofScheduled Caste, was cancelled by the District Level VigilanceCommittee, Tirvannamalai. Aggrieved by which, the petitionerfiled an appeal before the Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee,Chennai, constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the firstrespondent herein. As per the order dated 27.02.2004, inproceeding No.27645/ADW II/03, the Tamil Nadu State ScrutinyCommittee, held that the petitioner herein is not entitled toclaim the communal status of Schedule Caste and accordingly, herclaim was rejected. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2004,passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the petitionerherein has preferred this writ petition.3. According to the petitioner, her father and paternalgrand father originally belonged to Hindu Adi Dravidar Communityof Schedule Caste. Her paternal grand father got converted toChristianity, however, her father and grand father were livingonly with Hindu Adi Dravidar people in a remote undevelopedvillage called Anilady, wherein most of the inhabitants are HinduAdi Dravidar Community people and about twenty years ago herfather migrated from the said village to Polur Taluk ofChengalpattu District for survival and better prospects of life.The mother of the petitioner belongs to Hindu Vysya ChettiyarCommunity of Backward Class and they follow only Hindu Customsand worship Hindu Gods. According to the petitioner, her brotherPraveen, Sister Shalini and her mother were practising only Hinducustoms and worshipping, Hindu Gods, though her father waspractising Christianity. Subsequently, her father re-convertedto Hinduism, for which he underwent 'Shuddhi ceremony' andbecame a Hindu under auspices of Arya Samaj on 01.12.1996, forwhich, Arya Samaj gave him a certificate of conversion intoHinduism. According to her, after conversion into Hinduism herfather continued to be Hindu Adi Dravidar and the same has beenaccepted by the people of Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of thevillage, for which she has produced supporting documents obtained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the village President of Anilady and Hindu Adi Dravidarcommunity people of the said village, which is not in dispute inthis writ petition. 4. According to the petitioner, her father after re-conversion to Hinduism, belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Communityof Scheduled Caste. Her father changed his name from T.MariBernard to T.Mani Balan, after re-conversion to Hinduism, whenthe petitioner was studying VIII standard. Then, he applied forcommunity certificate and the Tahsildar, Polur Taluk issuedcommunity certificate dated 24.08.1998, after due enquiry, thathe belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Schedule Caste. Thepetitioner has further stated in her affidavit that even as perthe school records of her father, his caste is stated only asHarijan (Adi Dravidar) and he was all along living only with hisAdi Dravidar Community people. Having passed Higher Secondaryexamination, the writ petitioner applied for M.B.B.S. Course inthe Chengalpattu Medical College, as a candidate belonging toHindu Adi Dravidar Community, submitting all the records relatingto her caste. Having been satisfied with the records produced byher, the fourth respondent admitted her in Chengalpattu MedicalCollege for the four year M.B.B.S. Course in July 1999, under'Scheduled Caste" quota.5. According to the petitioner, the second respondent, byproceedings dated 10.10.2002, called upon the petitioner toappear before the District Vigilance Committee for enquiry, inorder to verify the genuineness of the community certificateissued in her favour by Tahsildar, Polur Taluk. The petitionerappeared before the second respondent on 28.10.2002, for theenquiry and submitted all the relevant records, in support of herclaim that she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community ofScheduled Caste. However, by proceedings dated 21.05.2003, thesecond respondent held that the Community Certificate issued infavour of the petitioner was not valid in law and accordingly,cancelled the Community Certificate, that had been issued byTahsildar, Polur Taluk, on the ground that the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Tiruvannamalai, by letter dated 03.04.2002, had informedthe second respondent that the community certificate issued infavour of the petitioner was not a genuine certificate. Accordingto the petitioner, she was not informed of the letter dated03.04.2002 written by the Revenue Divisional Officer,Tiruvannamalai, nor she was given any copy of the said letter. Noreasonable opportunity was given to her to confront the contentsof the letter dated 03.04.2002, issued by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Tiruvannamalai. According to the petitioner, as perlaw, she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Schedulecaste and that the proceeding, dated 27.02.2004 of Tamil NaduState Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent herein, confirming https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order of the District Level Committee is against law and onthat ground, she has sought for an order in the nature of writ ofcertiorari and quash the impugned proceeding and to pass suchorder or orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstancesof the case.6. Mr.Vijay Narain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that the petitioner's paternal grand fatherand father belonged to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of ScheduleCaste. However, her paternal grand father got converted toChristianity, but as persons belonging to Adi Dravidar Community,they were living only with the said community people.Subsequently, the petitioner's father married the mother of thepetitioner, who belongs to Hindu Vysya Chettiar Community ofBackward Class and practising only Hindu customs and they areliving only with Hindu Adi Dravidar Community people. Therefore,the father of the petitioner re-converted to Hinduism, while thepetitioner was a minor, studying VIII standard, for which heunderwent 'Suddhi ceremony' and became a Hindu, under theauspicious of Arya Samaj on 01.12.1996 and that the Arya Samaj(Central), Chennai issued a certificate on 01.12.1996 statingthat the father of the petitioner converted himself to Hinduismfrom Christianity.7. Mr.K.Bala Subramaniam, learned Special Government Pleaderappearing for the respondent submitted that the father of thepetitioner was only a born Christian of Adi Dravidar Communityand therefore, he could not be recognised as a person belongs toSchedule Caste, even after his conversion to Hinduism. Accordingto him, merely because, the father of the petitioner wasconverted to Hinduism, the petitioner is not eligible to claimthe communal status of Schedule Caste and further, the mother ofthe petitioner belongs to Hindu Vysya Chettiyar Community whichis recognised only as the Backward Class, in such circumstances,the petitioner is not entitled to the status of schedule caste.According to the learned counsel for the respondents, there is noillegality in the impugned order dated 27.02.2004 passed by theState Level Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent herein, inconfirming the order passed by the District Level Committee bythe impugned order, dated 21.05.2003.8. Per contra, Mr.Vijay Narain, learned Senior Counselappearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that as perlaw, the petitioner is entitled to claim the status of ScheduleCaste after re-conversion of her father to Hinduism, since heoriginally belonged to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of ScheduledCaste. The learned Senior Counsel relying on the decision of thisCourt, N.S.Ziauddeen vs. S.Ashok Kumar, Principal Sessions Judge,Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 and three others reported in 2002(2) CTC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 257 and R.Shankar vs. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras,reported in 2007 Writ L.R.863, submitted that though thepetitioner was born to christian father, originally he was HinduAdi Dravidar, converted to christianity and subsequently,renounced christianity and re-converted to Hinduism, as his re-conversion to Hinduism was accepted and recognised by Hindu AdiDravidar community people. The learned Senior Counsel submittedthat after re-conversion to Hinduism, both the petitioner and herfather are entitled to the rights and benefits available to HinduAdi Dravidar Community of Scheduled Caste people. In the decisionreferred to above, reported in 2007 Writ L.R.863 (cited supra),the Division Bench of this Court headed by one of us (Hon'bleMr.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO), it has been held as follows :"14...A careful reading of the reports of theDistrict Collector as well as the Tahsildarwould clearly show that the petitionerreconverted to Hinduism in 1983, his name waschanged from Charles to Sankar and acertificate to that effect was given by HinduMission. The question involved in the presentcase is whether a person, whose ancestorsbelonged to a scheduled caste beforeconversion to Christianity can, on conversionor re-conversion to Hinduism, be regarded asa member of the scheduled caste and as towhether the caste certificate issued to thepetitioner is genuine or not..."9. In the decision reported in 2002 (2) CTC 257 (citedsupra), another Bench of this Hon'ble High Court, considering thedecisions in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner,Tribal Development, 1994 AIR SCW 4116, Valasama Paul vs. CochilUniversity, 1996 (1) CTC 301 and S.Swvigaradoss vs. ZonalManager, F.C.I, 1996 (1) CTC 257, has held that the firstrespondent in the aforesaid writ petition, who was born toChristian parents, originally belonged to Hindu Pallar Communityof Scheduled Caste, is entitled to claim the status of ScheduledCaste, after his re-conversion to Hinduism and having beenaccepted by the said community people.10. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inGuntur Medical College vs. Mohan Rao, reported in AIR 1976 SC1904, has laid down ratio decidendi, that a person whose parentsor grand parents, originally belonged to a scheduled caste beforetheir conversion to Christianity can, on re-conversion toHinduism, be regarded as a member of the scheduled caste, only ifhe is accepted as a member of that caste by the other members ofthe caste. Therefore, it is clear that on conversion to Hinduism,a person born to Christian converts cannot become a member of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ caste to which his parents belonged, prior to their conversion tochristianity, automatically or as a matter of course, since itdepends on the acceptance of the other people of the community.In the said decision, it has been further held that Mr.Mohan Raoborn to parents belonging to "Madiga" caste, which is arecognised scheduled caste in the State of Andhra Pradesh,however, both his parents converted to Christianity, later onMr.Mohan Rao re-converted to Hinduism. Though he was born tochristian parents of Madiga caste, his conversion to Hinduism wastreated only as re-conversion and as his re-conversion toHinduism was accepted by the people of Hindu Madiga community,held that he was entitled to claim the community status. In thesaid Judgement, in paragraph 7, it is stated as follows :"7...It is for the members of the caste to decidewhether or not to admit a person within the caste.Since the caste is a social combination of personsgoverned by its rules and regulations, it may, ifit rules and regulations so provide, admit a newmember just as it may expel an existing member.The only requirement for admission of a person asa member of the caste is the acceptance of theperson by the other members of the caste, for aspointed out by Krishnaswami Ayyanagar, J. InDurgaprasada Rao vs. Sudarasanaswami, AIR 1940Madras 513, "in matters affecting the well beingor composition of a caste, the caste itself is thesupreme judge' (emphasis supplied). It will,therefore, be seen that on conversion to Hinduism,a person born of Christian converts would notbecome a member of the caste to which his parentsbelonged prior to their conversion toChristianity, automatically or as a matter ofcourse, but he would become such member, if theother members of the caste accept him as a memberand admit him within the fold."11. In Kumari Madhuri Patil's case, 1994 AIR SCW 116, thoughthe Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines anddirections to form Scrutiny Committee for verification of thecaste certificates, whenever dispute arises in this regard, thesaid case is not relating to the issue of re-conversion, which isthe issue on hand. In the instant case, the question involved iswhether the petitioner herein, whose ancestors belonged toscheduled caste before conversion to Christianity, could claimthe status of Scheduled Caste, on conversion or re-conversion toHinduism as a member of the scheduled caste or not. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. In the instant case, apart from the averments, there wasa declaration by the father of the petitioner that by birth andcustom, he belongs to Adi Dravidar Community. Even afterconversion to Christianity, his parents were residing with thesaid community people, after his re-conversion to Hinduism, thesame was accepted by the people of Hindu Adi Dravidar Community,for which he has produced supporting documents, the Certificateobtained from Village Panchayat President, Anilady and from thepeople of Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of the said village, whichis not in dispute. 13. In the impugned order, the Tamil Nadu State ScrutinyCommittee, rejected the request made by the petitioner andconfirmed the order passed by the District Level Committee mainlybecause the petitioner's father was born to Christian parents.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for therespondents has also placed his arguments mainly on that basis,that it cannot be construed as re-conversion to Hinduism. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner,drew the attention of this court to the Secondary School LevelCertificate of the petitioner's father. It is seen that the saidcertificate is dated 06.04.1970, wherein the following detailsare given. 1. Name of the pupil (in full): T.Mani Bernad2. (i) Nationality: Indian (ii) Religion: R.C. (iii) Community : (Say Yes or No) Whether Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Most Backward Class or Convert to Christianity fromScheduled Caste. : Yes, Harijan15. On the date of the S.S.L.C Certificate, the petitioner'sfather was only a minor, aged 16 years, however, it is made clearthat even in his S.S.L.C. Book, dated 06.04.1970, prepared by theSchool Authority, nearly 26 years prior to his conversion toHinduism, he was stated only as a Convert to Christianity fromScheduled Caste and further, stated that he was Harijan,otherwise known as Scheduled Caste. As per the certificate issuedby the Arya Samaj (Central) Madras on 01.12.1996, thepetitioner's father T.Mari Bernard, changed his name as T.ManiBalan, underwent 'Suddhi Ceremony' and was converted to Hinduism,for which certificate of conversion to Hinduism was issued byArya Samaj. After conversion, he had published a private news inthe Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part IV Section 4 that he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ converted from Christianity to Hinduism and also changed his nameas T.Mani Balan instead of T.Mari Bernard.16. It is a fact that one can change his religion, by way ofconversion, but cannot change his caste. Hence, it is not indispute that the petitioner's father belongs to Adi DravidarCommunity by birth, though their parents changed their religionby conversion and in turn, he converted himself to Hinduism, asper recognised procedure, therefore, it could be construedlegally a re-conversion.17. In the light of the decisions referred to above, it isclear that the petitioner's father was only a convert toChristianity from Scheduled Caste, as per his S.S.L.C Book, dated06.04.1970, which is not in dispute in this writ petition. It hasbeen established that the petitioner's father was born toChristian parents, who were originally Hindus, belonged toScheduled Caste, since the paternal grand parents were Hindus,the conversion of the father of the petitioner is only re-conversion to Hinduism. In this case, he was re-converted toHinduism on 01.12.1996, after undergoing 'Suddhi Ceremony' byArya Samaj, (Central) Madras. He has also intimated his re-conversion to Hinduism, by way of private news published in theTamil Nadu Government Gazette. The Certificates obtained by thepetitioner's father from the Village Panchayat President, Aniladyand the statement signed by the community people of Hindu AdiDravidar Community of Anilady village, would clearly show thatthe other members of the caste have accepted him as a member oftheir community within their fold. After due enquiry, Tahsildar,Polur Taluk had issued Regular Community Certificate dated24.08.1998 in the proper format, stating that T.Mani Balan,father of the petitioner herein belongs to Hindu Adi DravidarCommunity of Scheduled Caste, as per the SC & ST Orders(Amendment) Act, 1976. The material available on record showsthat the Tahsildar, has issued the said community certificateproperly after making due enquiry, according to law, and which isvalid in law, in the light of the various decisions of theHon'ble Apex Court and this Court. 18. Based on the community status, it is seen that thepetitioner, M.Shyamala, daughter of T.Mani Balan is stated asHindu Adi Dravidar Community of Scheduled Caste, in her TransferCertificate, dated 31.05.1999 issued by the Mt.St. Joseph MatricHigher Secondary School, Tiruvannamalai and the Tahsildar,Tiruvannamalai has also given community certificate to thepetitioner, Shyamala, daughter of T.Mani Balan as Hindu AdiDravidar Community of Scheduled caste. As the petitioner's fatheris entitled to the status of Hindu Adi Dravidar Community ofScheduled Caste, after re-conversion to Hinduism, being his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ daughter, the petitioner is entitled to claim the same communitystatus, it is no way a bar on the ground that her mother belongsto Hindu Vysya Chettiyar caste of Backward Class, when there is adeclaration that she was brought up, as per the custom of herfather's community.19. In the light of the various decisions of the Hon'bleSupreme Court and this Court referred to above, we are of theconsidered view that the following are basic requirements neededfor claiming the status of Scheduled Caste on the ground of re-conversion :1. The person claiming the status of Scheduled Caste on there-conversion must have born to the parents, who had beenScheduled Caste, prior to their conversion and the re-conversionshould be accepted by other members of the said community.2. Even a person born to Christian parents can claim thestatus, after re-conversion to Hinduism, provided, byestablishing the fact that his grand parents belong to ScheduledCaste and lost the status, only due to their conversion to otherreligion and the re-conversion is accepted by the other membersof the community, as member in their fold.3. As per law, one can change his religion, by conversion orre-conversion, but cannot change his community, by way ofconversion.4. In order to claim the status of Scheduled Caste, by re-conversion to Hinduism or Sikh religion, it is mandatory that atthe relevant time, the said re-conversion should have beenaccepted by the other members of the caste within their fold.20. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, inthe light of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court andthis Court, we are of the view that the writ petitioner isentitled to claim social status as Hindu Adi Dravidar Communityof Scheduled Caste. However, the legal aspects were not properlyconsidered in the impugned order passed by the first respondent,in the proper perspective and therefore, the writ petition has tobe allowed and the impugned order, dated 27.02.2004 passed by thefirst respondent and the earlier order passed by the secondrespondent, cancelling the community certificate issued in favourof the petitioner are liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and theimpugned order, dated 27.02.2004 passed by the first respondentand the earlier order passed by the second respondent, cancellingthe community certificate issued by the Tahsildar in favour of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner are set aside. It is made clear that thepetitioner is entitled to claim the status of Hindu Adi DravidarCommunity of Scheduled Caste for all purposes. However, there isno order as to costs. TsvnSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Chairman, District Vigilance Committee, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.3. The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.4.The Dean, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu+ 1 cc to Mr. S. Raghavan, Advocate SR No. 153 Order in W.P.No.7297 of2004LA(CO)SR/20.1.2009