P. Renuga v. The Assistant Director, District Employment Exchange, Salem 637 007 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.09.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.No.19716 of 2009P.Renuga...PetitionerVs.1.The Assistant Director, District Employment Exchange, Salem 637 007.2.The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board Chennai 600 006...RespondentsWrit Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the1st respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the list ofScheduled Tribe Candidate for the post of Physical EducationTeacher and direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitionerunder the quota reserved for the Scheduled Tribe Community.For Petitioner : Mr.S.DoraisamyFor Respondents : Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.G.PO R D E RThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seekingfor a direction to the respondents to include her name in the listof Scheduled Tribe Candidate for the post of Physical EducationTeacher and for a consequential direction to the second respondentTeacher Recruitment Board (TRB) to appoint her under the quotameant for the Scheduled Tribe Community.2. When the writ petition came up on 24.09.2009, thelearned Special Government Pleader was directed to take notice.Subsequently, it was admitted on 19.10.2009. Pending the writpetition, the petitioner's prayer for interim direction to reserveone post and for a direction to include her name in the eligiblelist of Scheduled Tribe candidate were dismissed by this Court on19.10.2009.3. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed acounter affidavit dated 09.12.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The case of the petitioner was that she had acquired thequalification of Bachelor Degree in Physical Education and SportsScience (BPES) in May 2003. She got herself registered with theEmployment Exchange on 31.07.2003 for the purpose of beingconsidered for the post of Physical Education Teacher. She claimedthat she belong to Konda Reddy Community, which is a notifiedScheduled Tribe Community under the Presidential order. She alsoobtained a community certificate from the Tahsildar, Mettur on25.04.1987 and in all her school records, her community was shownas Konda Reddy, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. On17.09.2009, the first respondent had issued a statement which wasalso published in the Dinakaran Daily Newspaper stating that theseniority list for the selection of Physical Education Teacher hadbeen released by the Teacher Recruitment Board on the basis of theEmployment Registration Seniority applicable to the communities. Asper the said statement, the Scheduled Tribe Candidates who gotregistered their names upto 09.09.2009 are eligible to be included,whereas the name of the petitioner was not included and therefore,because of the negligence of the respondents, she lost heropportunity of getting employed under the State. 5. In answer to the allegations made, the first respondenthas filed a counter affidavit dated 09.12.2010. In the counteraffidavit, it was stated that as per the office records, she hasbeen registered under the Forward Community. As per G.O.Ms.No.1201,Social Welfare Department, dated 31.05.1985, the Government hasstipulated that it is only the Revenue Divisional Officer shallissue Community Certificate in respect of persons belonging toKonda Reddy Community for the purpose of appointment to the StateGovernment and Public Sector Undertaking. Since the petitioner hasnot produced community certificate from the approved authority,her claim that she should be considered under the Scheduled TribeCommunity cannot be considered. As the petitioner has beenconsidered under the open competition category for which names areconsidered only upto 24.08.2000, her name was not considered. 6. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitionercontended that since she is having valid certificate issued by theTahsildar, Mettur showing her community as Konda Reddy and thecertificate having been obtained as early as 25.04.1987, the saidcertificate is valid in the eye of law. In this context, hereferred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.Kandasamy v.The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust reported in (1997) 7 SCC 505and relied on to the following passages found in paragraphs 4 to 6:"4. We have heard learned counsel for the partiesand perused the record. Para 4 of the GOMs No. 2137dated 11-11-1989 reads thus:“The Government directs that the CommunityCertificates in respect of all communitiesincluded in the list of Scheduled Tribes, forthe purpose of appointments in public servicesunder the Central and State Governments, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Public Sector Undertakings, quasi-Governmentinstitutions, Banks etc., shall hereafter, beissued only by the Revenue DivisionalOfficers.”5. On a doubt being raised regarding the validity ofcertificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11-11-1989, the Joint Secretary to the Government of TamilNadu on 3-4-1991 informed the Collectors of variousdistricts in Tamil Nadu that “the permanentCommunity Certificate issued to Scheduled Tribes byTehsildars up to 11-11-1989 is valid”. Thiscommunication had been placed on record in the HighCourt. From a combined reading of GOMs No. 2137dated 11-11-1989 and letter of the Joint Secretarydated 3-4-1991, (supra) it follows that whereas aCommunity Certificate after 11-11-1989 is requiredto be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, butthe Community Certificates issued by the Tehsildarprior to 11-11-1989 are valid certificates. In viewof this position, it was not proper for therespondent to have insisted upon a fresh certificateto be produced by the appellant from the RevenueDivisional Officer as admittedly the CommunityCertificate produced by the appellant had beenissued by the Tehsildar concerned in 1987, that is,prior to 11-11-1989.6. In our opinion the Community Certificate issuedto a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tehsildarprior to 11-11-1989 is a good and valid CommunityCertificate for all purposes so long as such acertificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannotdecline to take that into consideration and insistupon a fresh Community Certificate from the RevenueDivisional Officer."Therefore, he contended that the stand of the respondents wasillegal and appropriate direction should be given.7. However, this Court do not think that the respondentshave committed any illegality in not accepting the claim of thepetitioner. In fact, the learned Judges who delivered the saidjudgment had no occasion to consider the directions issued by theSupreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., TribalDevelopment reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. In that case, the SupremeCourt on noticing that several false community certificates havebeen produced issued several directives to streamline the procedurefor identifying the applicants producing bonafide certificates.8. Whether those directives are binding in terms of Article141 of the Constitution or mere guidelines was also considered by asubsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M. Indian Bank v. R. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rani reported in (2007) 12 SCC 796. In paragraphs 5 to 7, it wasobserved as follows:-5. We first proceed to consider the question as towhether the directions contained in the decision ofthis Court in Madhuri Patil1 were merely guidelinesor law laid down by this Court. In Madhuri Patil1after due consideration the Court gave variousdirections. Direction 4 in SCC para 13 at p. 254reads thus:“4. All the State Governments shallconstitute a committee of three officers,namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretaryor any officer higher in rank of the Directorof the department concerned, (II) theDirector, Social Welfare/TribalWelfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the casemay be, and (III) in the case of ScheduledCastes another officer who has intimateknowledge in the verification and issuance ofthe social status certificates. In the caseof the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officerwho has intimate knowledge in identifying thetribes, tribal communities, parts of orgroups of tribes or tribal communities.”6. According to aforesaid Direction 4, the committeefor verifying the caste certificate shall beconstituted of three persons viz. (I) anAdministrative Officer, (II) the Director, SocialWelfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, asthe case may be, and (III) in the case of ScheduledCastes, an officer who has intimate knowledge in theverification and issuance of social statuscertificates and in the case of Scheduled Tribes,the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge inidentifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts ofor groups of tribes or tribal communities.Subsequently, for recall of the aforesaid judgment apetition was filed before this Court which wasdisposed of in Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., TribalDevelopment2 and no change was made in theconstitution of the committee.7. The directions given in Madhuri Patil1 have beenreiterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. ofA.P. v. Laveti Giri3 in which while reiterating itwas observed that the Government of India shouldhave the matter examined in greater detail and bringabout a uniform legislation in relation to thesematters. In Baswant v. State of Maharashtra4 thisCourt held that the constitution of the committeewas not in accordance with the decision rendered by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court in Madhuri Patil1 as such the appeal wasallowed and it was directed to constitute thecommittee in terms of the decision of this Court inMadhuri Patil1 and decide the matter afresh. Thesaid directions of this Court in Madhuri Patil1regarding constitution of committee have beenapproved by a three-Judge Bench of this Court inSudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra5 inwhich as the matter was not referred to appropriatecommittee in terms of directions given in MadhuriPatil1 the appeal was allowed and it was directedthat the properly constituted committee shall decidethe matter. In view of the foregoing discussions itcannot be said that the directions given in MadhuriPatil1 were simply guidelines. In our view, the lawlaid down in Madhuri Patil1 has been reiteratedtimes without number not only by two-Judge Benchesbut even by a three-Judge Bench of this Court."9. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has producedthe certificate from the Tahsildar does not immune her fromscrutinising by the authorities before accepting her claim as aScheduled Tribe. Very recently, a Full Bench of this Court inTamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep. By its Secretary v.R.Manikandan and others reported in 2011 (5) CTC 1 dealt with thecandidate, whose name was not in the provisionally select list andwho claimed to be a scheduled Tribe. The Full Bench in paragrah 27gave the following directions:"27.In that view of the matter and for the reasonsdiscussed, we answer the reference in the followingmanner:-A)The scrutiny of the genuineness of the ScheduledCaste certificates can be made only by DistrictLevel Vigilance Committee constituted by the StateGovernment in terms of G.O. (2D) No.108, AdiDravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated12.09.2007;B)The scrutiny of the genuineness of the ScheduledTribe certificates can be made only by State LevelScrutiny Committee constituted by the StateGovernment in terms of G.O. (2D) No.108, AdiDravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated12.09.2007;C)Such scrutiny of certificates, be it ScheduledCaste or Scheduled Tribe, cannot be made by theTamil Nadu Public Service Commission; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ D)For the purpose of processing the application andallowing a candidate to take part in the writtenexamination and the consequential oral examination,the Service Commission would be entitled to verifyas to whether the Candidate has produced a CasteVerification Certificate obtained from therespective Committees and in the event suchcertificate is produced, the selection of thecandidate cannot be withheld and the name should beforwarded to the appointing authority for makingappointments;E)In the event a candidate does not produce such aCaste Verification Certificate and in the event heis selected, his name cannot be withheld and can beforwarded for appointment with a clear indicationthat the selection is subject to the verification ofthe community certificate;F)In terms of paragraphs 10 and 15 of the directionsof the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case,which we have extracted, a candidate who is selectedand appointed subject to verification of thecommunity certificate, shall not claim any benefitof such selection and in case if the certificate isfound to be false, the candidate should consequentlylose his employment.With the above directions, we answer the issuereferred before us."10. In the present case, the petitioner has not gone intoany selection process and her claim is yet to be accepted as aScheduled Tribe candidate. Therefore, it is open to the firstrespondent to refer the community certificate for scrutinyregarding the genuineness by the State Level Scrutiny Committeeconstituted by the State Government in terms of G.O. (2D) No.108,Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.09.2007. Basedon the report of the said Committee, the request of the petitionercan be considered.11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However,there will be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarsvki https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Assistant Director District Employment Exchange Salem 637 0072.The Chairman Teacher Recruitment Board Chennai 600 0061 cc To Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, SR.58730ORDER IN W.P.No.19716 of 2009RSY(CO)RH (30.9.11)