High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22..7..2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMW. P. No. 19042 of 2007Union of IndiaRep. by its Railway Recruitment BoardChennaiMember SecretaryNo. 5 Dr. P.V. Cherian Crescent RoadEgmore, Chennai.. Petitioner-vs-1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104.2.R. Ashok Kumar3.The Revenue Divisional OfficerDharmapuri.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating tothe order dated 03.5.2007 passed in O.A. No. 953 of 2006 on the fileof the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, andquash the same.For Petitioner : Mr. S.R. Sundaram, ACGSCFor R2: Mr. Balan HaridassO R D E R(made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J)This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated03.5.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.953 of 2006. The relief sought for by the applicant before theTribunal was to declare that the action of the Chief PersonnelOfficer, Southern Railway in insisting for community certificate inthe prescribed format from the Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ or in the alternative to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer,Dharmapuri to issue community certificate to him in the prescribedformat to the effect that he belongs to Kattunayakan community andthat he belongs to Scheduled Tribe based on the permanent communitycertificate dated 26.12.1998 issued by the Assistant Collector,Dharmapuri and consequently, to direct the Chief Personnel Officer,Southern Railway to appoint him as Section Engineer / Works. 2.The case of the applicant, who is a B.E. Degree holder inCivil Engineering and who belongs to Kattunayakan community, which isa Scheduled Tribe, is that pursuant to the advertisement issued bythe Railway Recruitment Board for appointment to the post of SectionEngineer / Works and Section Engineer / P.Way, he applied for thesame and he came out successful in the selection process, viz.,written examination and interview, and he was selected for the postof Section Engineer / Works. It is further stated that when hesubmitted the certificates including Community Certificate obtainedfrom the Tahsildar for verification, the Chief Personnel Officer,Southern Railway insisted for a certificate from the RevenueDivisional Officer. The grievance of the applicant before theTribunal was that the Revenue Divisional Officer declined to issuecommunity certificate stating that when permanent communitycertificate has been issued by the Tahsildar, there is no question ofissuing another community certificate in the format prescribed by theRailways and the Chief Personnel officer, Southern Railway is notwilling to accept the same and on the contrary, he is insisting forcertificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer. Apprehending thatthere are chances for cancellation of his selection in the event ofnon-production of the certificate as required, the applicantapproached the Tribunal with the above O.A.3.The Railway Board filed a reply statement before theTribunal stating that as per the Memorandum dated 23.02.1995 of theMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, whichstipulates certain conditions, as far as the Scheduled Tribecommunity of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the community certificate givenby the Revenue Divisional Officer should only be accepted for thepurpose of employment under the Government of India and on thatbasis, they sent call letters to the selected candidates to appearwith documents in original including community certificate and a copyof the format of community certificate was also enclosed in the callletter. The further contention of the Railway Board is that theapplicant instead of producing the community certificate from RevenueDivisional Officer, has approached the Tribunal seeking for thedirection to accept the Community Certificate dated 26.12.1998 issuedby the Assistant Collector, Dharmapuri, and prayed for dismissal ofthe O.A. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.Based on the above said pleadings, the parties were beforethe Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel forthe parties and the materials placed on record, allowed the O.A. withdirection to the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, to acceptthe community certificate dated 26.12.1998 issued by the AssistantCollector and appoint him to the post of Section Engineer / Works.Aggrieved by the said order, the Railway Recruitment Board has filedthe present writ petition. 5.Heard the learned Additional Central Government StandingCounsel representing the petitioners and perused the materials placedbefore us.6.At the time of admission of the writ petition, interim staywas granted by order dated 29.5.2007 staying the order of theTribunal dated 03.5.2007 passed in O.A. No. 953 of 2006 and it wassubsequently allowed to continue by order dated 28.6.2007 withfurther direction to the petitioners to keep one post vacant.When a petition for vacating the stay was filed at the instance ofthe second respondent, a Division Bench of this Court, by an orderdated 05.7.2007, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer,Dharmapuri, to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner, on hisfiling an application, in the prescribed format. 7.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contendthat the Government of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar and Tribal WelfareDepartment, vide G.O. Ms. No. 2137 dated 11.11.1989 has ordered thatthe community certificate in respect of all communities included inthe list of Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of appointment in PublicServices under Central and State Government, Public SectorUndertakings, Quasi Government Institution, Banks, etc. shall beissued only by the Revenue Divisional Officers and that thecertificate relied on by the second respondent was subsequent to theGovernment Order. He further submitted that though the secondrespondent by his representation dated 27.11.2006, undertook toproduce the Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officerby 27.12.2006, but, on the contrary, without producing the same, hepreferred to approach the Tribunal.8.Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, learnedcounsel appearing for the second respondent reported no instructionsfrom the second respondent.9.It is not disputed that even as per the Tamil NaduGovernment, subsequent to issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 2137 dated11.11.1989, insofar as the Scheduled Tribe community of Tamil Nadu isconcerned, the certificate given by the Revenue Divisional Officeronly should be accepted for the purpose of employment under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government of India. Therefore, it is clear that on and after11.11.1989, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to issue communitycertificate to Scheduled Tribe Candidates in the State of Tamil Nadu.Admittedly, in the present case, the community certificate producedby the second respondent was dated 28.12.1998, ie., after theGovernment Order, and, therefore, on and after the said date, theRevenue Divisional Officer alone is the competent authority and assuch, the certificate relied on by the second respondent can only bestated to have been issued by an incompetent authority. Therefore,we are of the view that the second respondent is bound to produce thecommunity certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer and thepetitioner Department is justified in insisting upon production ofcertificate from the competent authority. But the Tribunal failedto see that the community certificate produced by the secondrespondent was not issued by the competent authority. 10.More over, it is to be noted that though a direction wasissued by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated28.6.2007 to keep one post vacant and though the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Dharmapuri was directed to issue Community Certificate tothe second respondent in the prescribed format vide order dated05.7.2007, subsequently, when the vacate stay petition was taken upfor hearing, the interim stay granted on 29.5.2009 was made absolute.11.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed settingaside the order passed by the Tribunal. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriTo1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri.1 cc To Mr.S.R.Sundaram, Advocate, SR.33458.W. P. No. 19042 of 2007 SSK(CO)RVL 11.08.2009