M.Punithavalli v. Central Bank of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.9.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAMWrit Petitions No.31246 and 32249 of 2007and M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.32249 of 2007W.P.No.31246 of 2007M.Punithavalli... Petitioner Vs.Central Bank of India,rep.by its Regional Manager,Regional Office:3rd Floor,PB.No.557, 14/15,Variety Hall Road,Coimbatore-1.... RespondentW.P.No.32249 of 2007Central Bank of India,Variety Hall Road,Coimbatore-641 001,rep.by its Regional Manager... PetitionerVs.1.M.Punithavalli2.The District Vigilance Committee, Krishnagiri.... RespondentsPetitions presented to this Court to issue (1) writ of Mandamusdirecting the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner intoservice pursuant to the proceedings of the District VigilanceCommittee dated 1.8.2007 passed in Roc.No.4888/2004 (L3) and thepetitioner representation dated 10.8.2007 addressed to the respondentand to sanction all consequential service benefits like continuity ofservice, pay fixation, allowance, increments and arrears of back-wages and pay the same to the petitioner (WP 31246/2007) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2ndrespondent in proceedings No.ROc 4886/04(L3) and quash its orderdated 1.8.2007 (WP 32249/2007) respectively.* * *For petitioner in W.P.No.31246/2007: Mr.S.Sadasharam& for R.1 in W.P.No.32249/2007For R.1 inW.P.No.31246/2007: Mr.V.Karthick for& for petitioner in M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.W.P.No.32249/2007For R.2 inW.P.No.32249/2007: Mr.K.Balasubramanian,Spl.GP* * *COMMON ORDERELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the contestingparties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranking inW.P.No.31246 of 2007 and the second respondent in W.P.No.32249 of2007 is hereinafter referred to as the Committee.2. The petitioner has joined the services of the respondent Bankas a Clerk at the Erode Branch on 15.7.1982 under the Scheduled Tribequota on the basis of a community certificate issued by theAdditional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District, showingher as belonging to 'Kurumans' community. When she produced theoriginal certificates, the Bank found that in the S.S.L.C. Book, hercommunity was entered as 'Vellalar' community, which is not a ST.Therefore, the community certificate produced by the petitioner wasreferred for verification by the District Collector, DharmapuriDistrict and the Bank issued a memo. on 2.9.1982 to the petitioner toproduce a fresh community certificate. According to the petitioner,she applied to the Tahsildar for a fresh community certificate andeven though necessary enquiries were made by the revenue officials,there was delay in issuing the community certificate and in themeantime, the Bank has also proposed to initiate disciplinaryproceedings and therefore, she has filed W.P.No.3541 of 1983 beforethis Court praying for a Writ of Mandamus to treat her as a ScheduledTribe person on the basis of the community certificate dated28.5.1982 issued by the Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ without insisting on the production of a fresh community certificatefrom the District Collector, and the said writ petition was dismissedas premature on 3.2.1984. The next day i.e. on 4.2.1984, thepetitioner submitted a letter to the respondent Bank contending thatthe community certificate already produced by her as obtained fromthe valid and competent authority is genuine and therefore, there wasno need to furnish a fresh community certificate as it is no longernecessary to produce a fresh community certificate from theCollector of the District, but, however, the respondent Bank issued acharge memo. dated 16.5.1985 alleging that the community was notshown as Scheduled Tribe in the S.S.L.C. Book and that she did notproduce any community certificate from the Collector as required andon enquiry from the Collector, the respondent Bank was convinced thatthe petitioner do not belong to 'Kurumans' community but belonged toVellala Caste. 3. At this juncture, on the part of the respondent Bank, theywould plead that the Collector, Dharmapuri District, by hiscommunication dated 19.4.1985, has informed them that the petitionerbelonged to 'Vellalar' community and hence they have issued the show-cause notice to the petitioner. After enquiry, a show-cause noticedated 18.11.1985 was issued by the disciplinary authority proposingto inflict the punishment of dismissal from service and aggrieved ofthe same, she filed W.P.No.12797 of 1985, praying to quash the same,but it was dismissed on 16.12.1985. The Writ Appeal preferredagainst the same also met the same fate of dismissal. In themeantime, the disciplinary authority has confirmed the punishment ofdismissal from service by the order dated 6.1.1986, based on whichthe respondent Bank passed an order dated 7.1.1986. Challenging thesaid order of dismissal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2721 of 1986before this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court, in theorder dated 9.10.1996 has ordered as follows:"Therefore, to solve the the problem once for all, I feelthat a direction should be issued to the DistrictCollector concerned to decide the question of thepetitioner's caste status following the guidelinescontained in the writ appeal No.241 of 1996 dated8.3.1996. The petitioner shall apply to the DistrictCollector, Dharmapuri for the issuance of the communitycertificate within four weeks from today, notwithstandingthe fact that there was an application by the petitioneron 14.3.1983. After the receipt of the said application,the District Collector, Dharmapuri either himself orthrough the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer shallconduct the enquiry after giving the petitioner an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opportunity to appear before him and produce documents, ifany. In case, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducts theenquiry, after completion of the enquiry, a report shallbe sent to the District Collector, Dharmapuri furnishing acopy of the same to the petitioner. On receipt of thereport by the Revenue Divisional Officer or the SubCollector concerned, the District Collector shall give thepetitioner another opportunity before finally deciding thequestion. After final decision is taken by the DistrictCollector, a copy of the same shall be sent to therespondents. If the decision of the District Collector isin her favour, she should be reinstated with all backwagesand consequential benefits from the date of terminationand continuity of service etc. The writ petition isordered on the above terms. However, there will be noorder as to costs. The District Collector, Dharmapuri isdirected to conduct the enquiry and complete the same asmentioned within four months from the date of receipt ofcopy of this order and the application from thepetitioner...."4. Thereafter, the District Collector conducted an enquiry andby the order dated 9.12.1988, he had found that the petitioner didnot belong to Kurumans community and accordingly, he has cancelledthe community certificate issued to the petitioner. Challenging thesaid action of the District Collector, the petitioner filedW.P.No.18025 of 1999 and a learned single Judge of this Court, by theorder dated 19.11.1999 has held that the District Level CasteScrutiny Committee alone had the jurisdiction to verify the communitycertificate as per the Government orders and accordingly set asidethe order of the District Collector and remitted the matter back tothe District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for passing fresh ordersafter giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter conductingenquiry, the second respondent Committee, by the impugned order dated1.8.2007, has held that the petitioner belongs to Kurumans communityand that the community certificate obtained by her was genuine.While the petitioner has filed W.P.No.31246 of 2007, praying todirect the respondent Bank to reinstate her into service based on thesaid report of the Committee, the employer-Bank has come forward tofile W.P.No.32249 of 2007 praying to quash the order of thecommittee. Since both the matters are interconnected with eachother, they both are heard in common and are being disposed of bythis common order. 5. The admitted case on both sides is that the marriage betweenthe parents of the petitioner is an inter-caste one; that the father https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the petitioner by name Mr.Munusamy belonged to 'Vellala Gounder'community and her mother belonged to 'Kurumans' community and thefather of the petitioner died when the petitioner was 1½ years oldand thereafter her mother became a Teacher and brought her up. Itseems since the mother of the petitioner belong to Kurumanscommunity, the petitioner has claimed the status of 'Kurumans' andobtained the community certificate as such, resulting in manylitigations and her dismissal order.6. Therefore, the question that requires to be decided by us iswhether the second respondent Committee is right in arriving at theconclusion that the petitioner belongs to 'kurumans' community, whichis admittedly the caste of her mother and not that of her father,being an inter-caste marriage?7. Law on the point of siblings of the inter-caste marriage iswell settled now. Ours is a patriarchy society and siblings of theinter-caste marriage are not an exception to this. In the case onhand, admittedly, the father of the petitioner belong to 'vellalagounder' community and the mother of the petitioner belong to'Kurumans' community, based on which alone she had claimed the statusof Scheduled Tribe. 8. straight answer to the case of the petitioner lies in thejudgment of the Honourable Apex Court in ANJAN KUMAR vs. UNION OFINDIA [(2006) 3 SCC 257]. In the said case also, the husbandbelonged to a forward class community and wife belonged to aScheduled Tribe community and their son claimed the communal statusas that of the mother and claimed benefits under the Scheduled Tribequota. The Honourable Apex Court has held, in unequivocal terms, asfollows:"The appellant is not entitled to get the Scheduled Tribecertificate.""The condition precedent for granting tribe certificate isthat one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs.The offshoots of the wedlock of a tribal woman married toa non-tribal husband – Forward Class (kayastha in thepresent case) cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status. Thereason being that such offshoot was brought up in theatmosphere of Forward Class and he is not subjected to anydisability. However, the situation will be different in acase where a tribal man married a non-tribal woman. Inthat case the offshoots of such wedlock would obviouslyattain the tribal status.""The object of Articles 341, 342, 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4-A) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is to provide preferential treatment for the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes having regard to the economicand educational backwardness and other disabilitieswherefrom they suffer. So also, considering the typicalcharacteristic of the tribal including a common name, acontiguous territory, a relatively uniform culture,simplistic way of life and a tradition of common descent,the transplantation of the outsiders as members of thetribe or community may dilute their way of life apart fromthe fact that such persons do not suffer anydisabilities."9. In this judgment, the appellant has referred to a circulardated 4.3.1975 issued by the government of India, Ministry of HomeAffairs on the subject "status of children belonging to the coupleone of whom belongs to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes" andparticularly referred to the portion 'when a Scheduled Tribe womanmarried a non-scheduled Tribe man, the children from such marriagemay be treated as members of the Scheduled Tribe community, if themarriage is accepted by the community and the children are treated asmembers of their own community. But, the Honourable Apex Court hasrefused to give any weightage to the said circular on the ground that'such circulars issued from time to time, not being law within themeaning of Article 13 of the Constitution, it would be of noassistance to the appellant on the face of the constitutionalprovisions...'10. This case of the Honourable Apex Court is squarelyapplicable to the case on hand. Following the above said judgment ofthe Honourable Apex Court, it is to be held that the petitioner, asibling of the inter-caste marriage cannot claim the benefits of aScheduled Tribe, based on the rule of matriarchy, which has beendeprecated by the Honourable Apex Court in the above said judgment,since only the rule of patriarchy would apply to such cases.11. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the secondrespondent Committee has erred in concluding that the petitionerbelong to Scheduled Tribe community. Accordingly, we set aside theorder of the second respondent Committee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For all the above reasons and discussions, W.P.No.31246 of 2007filed by the employee is dismissed and W.P.No.32249 of 2007 filed bythe employer Bank is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of2007 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarRaoTo1.The District Vigilance Committee,Krishnagiri2 The Regional Manager,Central Bank of India,Regional Office:3rd Floor,PB.No.557, 14/15,Variety Hall Road,Coimbatore-1.+2ccs to Mr.S.Sadasharam, Advocate Sr 46632+1cc to M/s. T.S.Goplan & Co. Advocate Sr 46078NM(CO)km/22.9. W.P.Nos.31246/2007 & 32249/2007