N.Poorna Prakash v. G.R.Medical University

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 19.09.2008Coram:The Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J ANDThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, JWrit Petition No.21858 of 2002and W.P.M.P.Nos.30223 and 30224 of 2002N.Poorna Prakash...Petitioner Versus1. Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. District Level Vigilance Committee, rep. by its Chairman and District Collector, Salem, Salem District. 3. Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Chennai-25. 4. Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-10. 5. Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem-30. ...RespondentsPrayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, for the issuance of Writ ofCertiorari to call for the records pertaining to the orderpassed by the second Respondent in his ProceedingsR.Dis.28326/96(D10) dated -12-2000 as confirmed by thefirst respondent in his Proceedings No.3270/Athi Na.2/2001dated 29-4-2002 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner..Mr.C.Selvlaraj, S.C. For Respondents..Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P. for R1,R2 and R4Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi for R3. No appearance for R5. (ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J)The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his appealby the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which confirmed thecancellation of his Community Certificate by the District LevelVigilance Committee, Salem.2. According to the petitioner, his ancestors belonged to HinduAdi Dravida Community, but his father switched over to Christianityand then reverted back to Hinduism in some time and the petitionerwas also converted to Hinduism. Therefore, according to him he isentitled to the benefits as a person belonging to the ScheduledCaste. When he joined M.B.B.S Course in 1995, he was asked to appearbefore the Revenue Divisional Officer to establish his community asHindu Adi Dravida. Subsequently, the second Respondent passed anorder in R.Dis.27325/96(D.10) dated -12-2000, cancelling hisCommunity Certificate. His writ petition was disposed of directinghim to exhaust the appeal remedy by filing an appeal to the StateLevel Scrutiny Committee, the appellate authority. The appellateauthority also confirmed the said order of cancellation of CommunityCertificate and therefore, he filed this writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleaderappearing for the Respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi,learned counsel appearing for the third Respondent. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that the original order of cancellation by the DistrictLevel Vigilance Committee was illegal since the said Committeeconsist of only two members, which was contrary to the guidelinesissued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v.Addl.Commr., Tribal Development, Thane and Others AIR 1995 SC 94 andthereby the defect could not have been cured by taking the matter inappeal to the State Level Committee. In support of his contentions,the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decisionof the Supreme Court reported in (2008)1 MLJ 125 (SC) (G.M., IndianBank v. R.Rani and another) wherein it has been held as follows:-"So far as the second submission is concerned, we are of theview that as the constitution of the District LevelCommittee was in infraction of law laid down by this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v.Addl.Commr., Tribal Development, Thane and Others (supra),the defect could not have been cured by taking the matter inappeal to the State Level Committee. This being theposition, we are of the view that the High Court was quitejustified in quashing the orders passed by District LevelCommittee, State Level Committee and the orders oftermination."5. The learned senior counsel also referred to (2008) 6 MLJ 807(K.Gurusamy v. Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee Adi Dravidar andTribal Welfare Department, Chennai and Others)Wherein this Court relying upon (2008) 1 MLJ 125 SC (referred tosupra) held as follows:"RATIO DECIDENDI""As contemplated by the Supreme Court, the District LevelCommittee to consider the question of validity or otherwiseof the community certificate of a person allegedly belongingto Scheduled Tribe should consist of three members. Assuch, when the community certificate of a person wascancelled by the District Level Committee consisting of twomembers, though it was subsequently affirmed by the StateLevel Scrutiny Committee consisting of three members, theorder passed by the District Level Committee cancelling thecommunity certificate cannot be considered as valid andcould not be upheld."6. The learned Special Government Pleader on the other handsubmitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned seniorcounsel for the petitioner were prior to G.O.(2D).No.108 Adi Dravidarand Tribal Welfare (CV-I) Department, dated 12.9.2007 was issued andG.O.(2D).No.108 settles all those controversies. According toparagraph 3 of the said G.O. the orders passed by either of thecommittees related to Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste will befinal and reviewable only under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted thatwhile issuing G.O.(2D).No.108 the State was conscious of the factthat several orders had been passed by the committees which were theappropriate committees at the relevant point of time and therefore,only to deal with such situations the Government had given thedirections in para 3. Therefore, the order passed by the threemembers-State Level Committee is final and amenable to review onlyunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore thematter need not be remitted back to the District Level VigilanceCommittee. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that in(2008) 1 MLJ 125 SC the Supreme Court did not actually deal with G.O.(2D).No.108 and that the introduction of G.O.(2D).No.108 changes thepicture entirely. He also submitted that the said G.O. is in force. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. We have considered carefully the G.O.(2D).No.108 itselfwhich now deals with the issuance of community certificate. In(2008)1 MLJ 125 SC the respondent claimed the status of Konda Reddy.The District Level Committee which had examined her case, was notconstituted as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court inMadhuri Patel's case and therefore it was held that when theconstitution of the District Level Committee was contrary to the lawlaid down by the Supreme Court in Maduri Patel's case, that defectcannot be cured by taking the matter in appeal to the State LevelCommittee and therefore they quashed the order of the District LevelCommittee and also State Level Committee which had exercisedappellate jurisdiction. 9. In (2008)6 MLJ 807 the Division Bench had referred to G.O.(2D).No.108 . In that case, as in this case, the District Level twomember Committee cancelled the community certificate and the appealfiled by the petitioner was rejected by the State Level Committeeconsisting of three members by an order dated 4.3.2002, the DivisionBench referred the issuance of G.O.(2D).No.108 and thereafterremitted the matter to the appropriate committee as constituted bythe said G.O. 10. Since the learned Special Government Pleader referred toparagraph 3 of the said G.O.(2D).No.108, we extract the same herein:"The decision taken by the District Level VigilanceCommittee re-constituted in Government Order (Ms)No.111,Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Dated 67.2005 forverification of the genuineness of Community Certificateissued as Scheduled Tribes is final for the cases whichwere remitted to the three member District Level VigilanceCommittee by the State Level Scrutiny Committee as perCourt direction upto the date of issue of this order. Theindividuals who have already appealed to the State LevelScrutiny Committee against the orders passed by thereconstituted 3 member District Level Vigilance Committeein G.O.(Ms)No.111, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, dated6.7.2005, in case of the certificate issued by the DeputyTahsildar/Tahsildar be directed to initiate proceedingsunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India before theHigh Court, Madras. The appeal petitions already receivedby the State Level Scrutiny Committee against the orderspassed by the two member District Level Vigilance Committeeand which were not remitted back to the reconstituted threemember District Level Vigilance Committee by the Governmentas the cases are challenged before the court and therebypending before the State Level Scrutiny Committee beenquired only by the State Level Scrutiny Committeeirrespective of the certificates issued as ScheduledCaste/Scheduled Tribes. In respect of cases pending beforethe Court and not remitted to the State Level Scrutiny https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Committee, the outcome of such cases have to be awaited."11. So the para deals with 3 situations. The first is withregard to Scheduled Tribes. If by a Court Order the State LevelCommittee had remitted the case for verification of genuineness ofthe community certificate to a three member District Level VigilanceCommittee then notwithstanding the fact as per G.O.(2D).No.108 theScheduled Tribes certificate shall only be scrutinised by the StateLevel Committee, any order passed by the three member DistrictLevel Vigilance Committee upto the date of G.O (2D) No.108 would befinal and therefore the only remedy available to the aggrieved personis to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. 12. The next situation is with regard to those persons who hadappealed against the order of the re-constituted three memberDistrict Level Vigilance Committee on the understanding that appealremedy was provided. G.O.(2D).No.108 has taken away this appealremedy. Now, those persons who had appealed to the State LevelCommittee have been directed to initiate proceedings under Article226 of the Constitution of India. To clarify again, any person whowas aggrieved by the order passed by the three member District LevelVigilance Committee and had appealed to the Three member State LevelScrutiny Committee shall notwithstanding the filing of the appealmove this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 13. The third situation relates to such appeals which hadalready been received by State Level Committee against the orderspassed by the two member District Level Committee (which has sincebeen held to be illegal) and had not been remitted back to thereconstituted three member committee and continue to be with theState Level Committee since such cases were pending before the Court.These cases shall be decided by the State Level Scrutiny Committeewhether they relate to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. 14. The last case is with regard to the cases pending beforethe Court and not remitted to the State Level Committee. This shallawait the outcome of the Court Order. 15. Now, the present case, is a case of person who wasaggrieved by order of cancellation of Community Certificate by thetwo member District Level Committee and who had filed an appealbefore the State Level three member committee which had also passedan order confirming the order of the two member District LevelCommittee. Therefore no matter was pending either before theDistrict Level Committee or before the State Level Committee, thenon the date of G.O.(2D) No.108. This case does not fall in with anyof the above situations. On the other hand, (2008) 1 MLJ 125 SC and(2008) 6 MLJ (cited spra) apply exactly to the facts of the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case. Therefore, following the said ratio the impugned order is setaside, and the matter is remitted to the three member DistrictLevel Committee to pass an order afresh in accordance with law andindependently without being influenced by any of the observations ofthis Court or the findings of the two member District LevelCommittee or of the three member State Level Committee. The saidexercise will be done within a period of six weeks from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed on theabove terms. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.30223 and 30224 of2002 are closed. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrargr. To1. Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary toGovernment, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Chairman, District Level Vigilance Committee and DistrictCollector, Salem, Salem District. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai-25. 4. Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-10. 5. Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem-306.The Chairman, Three Members District Level Committee, Chennai.+1 cc To Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.537751 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.53676W.P.No.21858 of 2002ck [co]gkg/30.9