K.Balakrishnan v. The Secretary, Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondary School, Vikramasingapuram & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31.7.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGOWrit Petition Nos.19100 and 31795 of 2002& W.P.M.P.No.26275 of 2002K.Balakrishnan .. Petitioner in both the Writ Petitionsvs.1. The Secretary, Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondary School, Vikramasingapuram.2. The Chairman, State Scrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.3. The District Collector, Madurai.4. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.5. The District Educational Officer, Cheran Mahadevi Educational District, Tirunelveli. .. Respondents in both the Writ PetitionsWrit Petition No.19100 of 2002 filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari,to call for the records of the proceedings of the first respondent,dated 21.5.2002 and quash the same.Writ Petition No.31795 of 2002 filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari,to call for the records of the second respondent No.3750/ADW II/2000,dated 29.4.2002 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner : Mr.P.Vasantha Kumar VisweswaranFor respondents : Mr.S.Jayaraman for R-1 Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Addl.G.P. for RR-2 & 3 Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P. For RR-4 & 5COMMON ORDER(Common Order of the Court was made by S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J)As both these Writ Petitions have been preferred by the samepetitioner, and one Writ Petition is dependent on the other, both theWrit Petitions are heard together and disposed of by this commonorder.2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Vetan Community,which has been classified as a Scheduled Caste. The Tahsildar,Agasteeswaran Taluk issued a Community Certificate in his favour on21.6.1979 and he was appointed as Tamil Pandit in the firstrespondent-Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher SecondarySchool, Vikramasingapuram, in June 1990. His father, a retiredCentral Government Postal Audit Employee, also belongs to the sameCommunity. 3. While so working, the School authorities asked for the saidCommunity Certificate and so, another Community Certificate wasobtained by the petitioner on 31.10.1996 issued by the Tahsildar,Agasteeswaram, showing that the petitioner belonged to VetanCommunity. 4. It is alleged that while so functioning in the School, thematter was referred by the authorities. The Revenue DivisionalOfficer, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report that thepetitioner belonged to Hindu Maravar Community and directed theTahsildar, Ambasamudram to issue permanent Community Certificateshowing that the petitioner belonged to Hindu Maravar Community.Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the DistrictCollector, Tirunelveli, which was also confirmed by the StateScrutiny Committee (the second respondent herein) and the Certificateearlier issued was ordered to be cancelled. 5. In view of the cancellation of the Community Certificate andas the initial appointment of the petitioner was made against areserved post of Scheduled Caste, the School authorities, videimpugned order dated 21.5.2002, removed the petitioner from theservices, which was based on the proceedings of the secondrespondent-Committee, dated 29.4.2002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. In Writ Petition No.31795 of 2002, while the petitionerchallenges the proceedings of the second respondent-Committee, dated29.4.2002 relating to the cancellation of the Community Certificate,in the other Writ Petition in W.P.No.19100 of 2002, the petitionerchallenges the order of removal passed by the first respondent-School, dated 21.5.2002. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on one or otherdocument to show that the father of the petitioner also belongs toVetan Community and the Community Certificate was issued since21.6.1979 in favour of the petitioner. It was also submitted that theimpugned orders/proceedings have been passed without properverification and proper enquiry, which was required under law. It wasfurther submitted that the Community Certificate dated 21.6.1979 hasnot been cancelled till date, as the petitioner had been certifiedthat he belongs to Vetan Community. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that theproceedings of the respondents show that as per the PresidentialConstitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950, the Vetan Community hasnot been scheduled as a Scheduled Caste, but subsequently, the saidConstitution Scheduled Castes Order has been modified, videConstitution Scheduled Castes (Modification) Order, 1956, and theVetan Community was included in the Schedule as a Scheduled Castewith area restriction of Kanyakumari District and Senkottai Taluk ofTirunelveli District from 1.11.1956. Prior to that, there was norestriction of areas and the father of the petitioner, who has joinedthe post in the Audit/Accounts of the Postal Department in 1954, hasbeen shown to have belonged to a Scheduled Caste and such being thecase, the petitioner should not be termed to be belonging to HinduMaravar Community.9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that therespondents have not made proper enquiry as to from which Districtthe petitioner belongs to, and no opportunity was given to thepetitioner, as stipulated under G.O.(2D).No.108, Adi Dravidar andTribal Welfare (CV-I) Department, dated 12.9.2007. 10. According to the respondents, on 24.4.1990, the Secretary ofthe first respondent-School communicated to the District EmploymentOfficer, Tirunelveli, recommending some names of the SC/ST candidatesfor appointment to the post of Tamil Pandit. After interview, thepetitioner was selected on the presumption that he belongs to SCcommunity. 11. It is further submitted by the respondents that One AmbedkarMakkal Iyakkam, Tirunelveli District, sent a petition dated 14.8.1996informing the School authorities that the petitioner belongs to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Servai Community and does not belong to SC Community and theaforesaid petition was sent by the Secretary of the said Iyakkam,pursuant to which, the School authorities asked the petitioner tosubmit his Social Status Certificate. The petitioner also submittedSocial Status Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Agastheeswaram,Kanyakumari District, dated 31.10.1996 and the Deputy Tahsildar,Agastheeswaram, dated 21.6.1979. 12. After enquiry, it having been found that the father of thepetitioner, as also the petitioner, belonged to Hindu MaravarCommunity, the Tahsildar cancelled the Community Certificates issuedfrom 31.6.1996 to 16.5.1997, and the appeal preferred by thepetitioner to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, was alsorejected. 13. In fact, in Writ Petition in W.P.No.8502 of 1997, which waspreferred by the petitioner for quashing the order of the Tahsildar,cancelling the Community Certificate, this Court, in its order dated22.11.1997, directed the petitioner to apply to the RDO, Tirunelveli,who was to conduct enquiry in the presence of the petitioner andexamine witnesses etc. The petitioner appeared for such enquiry andchose to examine witnesses and also placed materials and documents insupport of his claim of social status. Those materials wereconsidered by the RDO, Tirunelveli, on merits. In the meantime, inview of the interim order passed by this Court, the services of thepetitioner were not terminated. The RDO, Tirunelveli, afterconsidering the materials, has passed orders, holding that thepetitioner does not belong to Vetan Community, but belongs to HinduMaravar Community, which was also accepted by the higher authority. 14. The respondents further allege that in another Writ Petitionin W.P.No.13719 of 1999, this Court, by order dated 16.8.1999,directed the District Collector, Tirunelveli, of the State ScrutinyCommittee to dispose of the matter. Accordingly, on 22.11.1999, thematter was posted for enquiry and the petitioner was directed to bepresent for the enquiry and he also appeared for the enquiry alongwith the lawyer(s). The said Committee, on the basis of the records,came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to VetanCommunity, but belongs to Hindu Maravar Community.15. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the partiesand perused the records.16. From the proceedings of the second respondent-Committee,dated 29.4.2002, it would be evident that a detailed enquiry wasconducted and large number of evidence was placed before the secondrespondent-Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar andTribal Welfare Department, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. As per the Presidential Constitution Scheduled Castes Order,1950, the Vetan Community has not been scheduled as a ScheduledCaste, but subsequently, by way of modification in the ConstitutionScheduled Castes (Modification) Order, 1956, the Vetan Community ofKanyakumari District and Senkottai Taluk of Tirunelveli District hadbeen scheduled as Scheduled Caste with effect from 1.11.1956. Inother areas, it has been classified as Backward Class in the name ofVedar or Vettaikarar. 18. It is evident from the proceedings of the second respondent-Committee, dated 29.4.2002, that it was reported before the Committeethat the grandfather of the petitioner, namely Ramasamy Servaimigrated from Sankaranpudur of Kanyakumari District and resided atPappankulam permanently; he had inter-caste marriage with Maravarcommunity lady and got three sons and two daughters; the elder son,named Shanmugasundaram, elder brother of the petitioner's father andthe resident of Pappankulam, Ambasamudram Taluk, TirunelveliDistrict, got Community Certificate as Maravar and worked as Managerat Ganapathi Middle School, Pappankulam; the second son, namedR.Krishnan used Maravar Community; the third son, namedKalyanasundaram, i.e. the father of the petitioner, born on 10.1.1930at Pappankulam, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli Ditrict and migratedto Chennai during 1955, settled there permanently, and he onlyclaimed Vetan Community and thus, for the first time, thepetitioner's father was shown to be Vetan Community.19. Taking into consideration the status of the grandfather ofthe petitioner who used to suffix his name as Servai, and also takinginto consideration the date of birth of the petitioner's father being10.1.1930 and the place of permanent abode being Pappankulam,Ambasamudram Taluk of Tirunelveli District and not KanyakumariDistrict and also considering the other facts, the second respondent-Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, came to a definite conclusionthat the petitioner does not belong to Vetan Community. A detailedfindings of facts, based on evidence having been recorded by the saidCommittee, we are of the view that this Court, under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the same, tocome to a different conclusion, particularly with regard tocaste/community of the petitioner.20. In view of the aforesaid findings, while we are not inclinedto interfere with the impugned order/proceedings, dated 29.4.2002 ofthe second respondent-Committee, the appointment of the petitionerhaving been made against the post of Scheduled Caste, for the samereasonings, we are also not inclined to interfere with the impugnedorder/proceedings of the first respondent-School, dated 21.5.2002,whereby the petitioner's services were terminated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. There being no merits, both the Writ Petitions aredismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. W.P.M.P. isclosed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcsTo1. The Chairman, State Scrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The District Collector, Madurai.3. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.4. The District Educational Officer, Cheran Mahadevi Educational District, Tirunelveli.2 cc To Mr.P.Vasanthakumar Visweswaran, Advocate, SR.33659,33660.1 cc To Mr.S.Jayaraman, Advocate, SR.33818.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.33717.Writ Petition Nos.19100 and 31795 of 2002SSK(CO)RVL 12.08.2009