K. Nageswara Rao v. Chennai Port Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.01.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIWrit Petition No.31051 of 2004K. Nageswara Rao.. Petitioner vs.1. Chennai Port Trust Chennai 600 001 rep. by its Chairman.2. The District Collector Singaravelar Maligai Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600001. .. RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for awrit of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to theimpugned order dated 21.10.04 Ref.G1/20259/03/S passed by the firstrespondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondentnot to disturb or dislodge the official position and employment of thepetitioner as Senior Deputy Secretary, in the Secretary's Department ofthe first respondent.For Petitioner : Mr.V.AyyaduraiFor Respondents : Mr.K.Ilango Spl. Govt. Pleader-R2 Mr.M.Jagadeesan-R1O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The petitioner, on the strength of the community certificate issuedby the Tahsildar, North-West, Madras-7, on 27.8.1971 certifying that hebelongs to "Konda Kappu" Community, which is included in the list ofScheduled Tribe, secured an employment in the first respondent-Port Trustas Clerk. The second respondent-Collector by proceedings dated 16.4.1985certified that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is agenuine one. However, by proceedings dated 30.7.2004, the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent-Collector directed the petitioner to appear before the StateLevel Scrutiny Committee on 6.8.2004 at 11.00 a.m. for an enquiry toverify the bona fide of the certificate relied on by the petitioner. Onreceipt of the said notice, the petitioner gave his representation dated5.8.2004 sustaining that he belongs to "Konda Kappu" Community, aScheduled Tribe. When the enquiry initiated by the State Level ScrutinyCommittee is still continuing and no final order has been passed, thefirst respondent by proceedings dated 21.10.2004 hastened to terminate theservice of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writpetition seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recordsrelating to the impugned order dated 21.10.2004 in Ref.G1/20259/03/Spassed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct thefirst respondent not to disturb or dislodge the official position andemployment of the petitioner as Senior Deputy Secretary in the Secretary'sDepartment of the first respondent.2. This Court, by order dated 27.10.2004, while admitting the abovewrit petition, granted interim injunction and stay. On the strength ofthe interim order, the petitioner is still continuing his service in thefirst respondent.3. According to Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 27.8.1971and the proceedings of the District Collector dated 16.4.1985 holding thatthe community certificate relied on by the petitioner is genuine, arestill in force and therefore, the petitioner cannot be terminated fromservice.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedSpecial Government Pleader for respondents and perused the materialsavailable on record.5. In the matter relating to verification and cancellation of thecommunity certificate after due enquiry, the Constitution Bench of theApex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001 (1) SCC 4) has held asfollows:"In order to protect and promote the less fortunate orunfortunate people who have been suffering from social handicap,educational backwardness besides other disadvantages, certainprovisions are made in the Constitution with a view to see thatthey also have the opportunity to be on par with the others inthe society. Certain privileges and benefits are conferred onsuch people belonging to Scheduled Tribes by way of reservationsin admission to educational institutions (professional colleges)and in appointments in services of State. The object behindthese provisions is noble and laudable besides being vital inbringing a meaningful social change. But, unfortunately, evensome better-placed persons by producing false certificates asbelonging to Scheduled Tribes have been capturing or corneringseats or vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes defeating the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ very purpose for which the provisions are made in theConstitution. The Presidential Orders are issued under Articles341 and 342 of the Constitution recognising and identifying theneedy and deserving people belonging to Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes mentioned therein for the constitutional purposeof availing benefits of reservation in the matters of admissionsand employment. If these benefits are taken away by those forwhom they are not meant, the people for whom they are reallymeant or intended will be deprived of the same and theirsufferings will continue. Allowing the candidates not belongingto Scheduled Tribes to have the benefit or advantage ofreservation either in admissions or appointments leads to makingmockery of the very reservation against the mandate and thescheme of the Constitution."6. In view of the above ratio, once an enquiry was initiated as tothe verification of the community certificate relied upon by thepetitioner, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribe Orders anyfurther or for any other constitutional purpose, much less servicebenefits, unless and until the State Level Scrutiny Committee holds thatthe community certificate relied upon by the petitioner is genuine andbona fide. 7. In the instant case, it was projected before the learned SingleJudge that the impugned enquiry was initiated by the District Collector,but not by the Committee. On the other hand, the fact remains that byproceedings dated 30.7.2004, the petitioner was required to appear beforethe State Level Scrutiny Committee in the office of the Collector on6.8.2004 at 11.00 a.m. for an enquiry to verify the bona fide of thecertificate relied on by the petitioner. Therefore, it may not be properto hold that the District Collector himself proposed to hold an enquiry,which is undoubtedly contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court inMaduri Patil's case, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. Once we are satisfiedthat the enquiry was proposed to be held by the State Level ScrutinyCommittee by proceedings dated 30.7.2004 only to verify the communitycertificate of the petitioner, suffice it to pass the following order inthe facts and circumstances of the case:(i) The impugned order dated 21.10.2004 passed by thefirst respondent-Port Trust authority, pending enquiry into thecorrectness of the community certificate dated 27.8.1971,relied on by the petitioner, is liable to be set aside andaccordingly, it is set aside;(ii) the State Level Scrutiny Committee is at liberty toproceed with the enquiry to verify the correctness and bonafide of the community certificate relied on by the petitioner,after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to thepetitioner in compliance with the principles of naturaljustice, and pass appropriate orders on merits as expeditiouslyas possible; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) the continuation of the service of the petitionerunder the first respondent-Port Trust shall be subject to theresult in the enquiry by the Committee; (iv) the petitioner cannot claim any further servicebenefit unless and until the State Level Scrutiny Committeeholds that the community certificate of the petitioner isgenuine and bona fide; and(v) the petitioner is at liberty to stake his claim forany service benefits subject to the result in the enquiry ofthe Committee.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.ATR Sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The District Collector Singaravelar Maligai Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600001.2. The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.+2 ccs to Mr.V.Ayyathurai, Advocate Sr.No.3502.+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.3754.+1 cc to Mr.M.Jagadeesan, Advocate Sr.No.3735.KLT(CO)DCP/11.2W.P.No.31051 of 2004