High Court · 2025

W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 20.03.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANUandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHYW.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022andWMP(MD)No.15584 of 2022R.Palanichamy... Petitionervs.1. The Director,Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,Chepauk,Chennai-600 005.2. The State Level Scrutiny Committee-II,Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,Secretariat, Chennai-9.3. The District Collector,Dindigul District,Dindigul.4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Palani,Dindigul District.5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,District Crime Records Bureau – In-charge,Page No.1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022Social Justice and Human Rights,SC/ST Vigilance Cell,Dindigul.... RespondentsPRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in pursuant to the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2022 in No.17542/CV-3(1)/2018-4, quash the same as illegal.For Petitioner: Mr.P.SaravanakumarFor R1 to R4: Mr.J.AshokAdditional Government PleaderFor R5: Mr.A.Albert JamesGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side)ORDER (Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)Challenging the proceedings dated 27.06.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent, holding that the petitioner does not belong to Kattunayakan community and therefore, the community certificate issued to him as Kattunayakan is not correct, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.Page No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 20222.The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:The petitioner was issued with a community certificate by the 4th respondent on 10.11.2011, certifying that he belongs to Kattunayakan community, which is a scheduled tribe community. According to the petitioner, the said certificate was issued based on a detailed enquiry conducted by a Senior Anthropologist, by confirming that the people residing in the petitioner's village namely, Pilathu Village, Vaalichettipatti, belong to Kattunayakan community. The petitioner, his daughter and his blood relatives were also issued with kattunayakan community certificates. On the strength of the said community certificate, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Police Department through the selection by the TNPSC under ST community quota. While the petitioner was working at Dindigul, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range, requested the 1st respondent to ascertain the genuineness of the petitioner's community. Pursuant thereto, the 5th respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated 09.03.2020 to the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner belongs to Kattunayakan community. However, the State Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022Level Scrutiny Committee / 2nd respondent called the petitioner to attend the enquiry. Though the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent and produced documents in support of his community claim, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 27.06.2022, stating that the petitioner's school records reflect Thottiyanaicker community which is a most backward community and therefore, the petitioner does not belong to Kattunayakan community. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.3.Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that despite the positive reports of the 5th respondent / Vigilance Cell and the Anthropologist, the 2nd respondent has adopted pick and choose method by relying upon only one document namely, school records which does not have evidentiary value. The report of the 5th respondent/Vigilance Cell was not served on the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. He would further contend that earlier kattunayakan community people were wrongly issued with Thottiyanayakkar community certificates and later it was clarified and Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022after surrendering the Thottiyanayakkar community certificates, the authorities issued the kattunayakkan community certificate, which vital fact was not taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent. He would also contend that earlier, when the villagers of Pilathu village claimed ST community certificate, the Tahsildar, Vedasadur, conducted an enquiry in 2007 and found that they can be issued with kattunayakan community certificates after obtaining the report of the Anthropologist. Thereafter, the Anthropologist also conducted a detailed enquiry in the year 2009 and concluded that 65 families of Pilathu Village are eligible to get kattunayakan community certificate and the District Level Vigilance Committee also passed an order in the year 2011, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, to issue kattunayakan community certificates to the villagers of Pilathu village. Though the 2nd respondent narrated the earlier proceedings in their order, it has not considered the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and rejected it on filmsy ground.4.It is also submitted that when the 5th respondent/Vigilance Cell after considering the earlier proceedings and the report of the Anthropologist, issued a favourable report in the case of the petitioner, Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022without even assigning any reason as to why it disregarded the report of the vigilance cell, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order. In this context, the counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the order passed by a Division Bench in the case of E.Karthikeyan vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-II, Chennai and others [W.P.Nos.2828 and 5237 of 2022, dated 25.11.2022]. Thus, the learned counsel would pray for setting aside the impugned order.5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would state that during the enquiry, the petitioner was not able to produce any documents prior to the year 2000 with probative value or the scheduled tribe community certificates, school records, land documents etc., of any of his parents, grandparents and other blood relatives on paternal/maternal side. On verification of the documents produced by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent concluded that he does not belong to kattunayakan community and therefore, the impugned order does not require interference by this Court.6.Heard both sides.Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 20227.Perusal of the impugned order shows that the 2nd respondent, finding that the petitioner was not able to produce any documents prior to the year 2000 with probative value or the scheduled tribe community certificates, school records, land documents etc., of any of his parents, grandparents and other blood relatives on paternal/maternal side and the petitioner's school records produced by him reflect Thottiyanaicker community which is a most backward community, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 27.06.2022, holding that the petitioner does not belong to Kattunayakan community.8.Perusal of the impugned order also shows that even before the issuance of community certificate to the petitioner in the year 2011 certifying him as belong to kattunayakan community, based on the request made by 65 families living in Pilathu Village, Vaalichettipatti, to issue kattunayakan community certificate, the Tahsildar, Vedasandur, conducted enquiry and sent a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, stating that his enquiry revealed the claim of 60 families at Pilathu village as genuine and they can be issued with kattunayakan community certificate after obtaining the report of the Anthropologist. Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022Pursuant thereto, report of the Anthropologist was called for. The Anthropologist Dr.Sumathi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Anthropology, University of Madras, had conducted enquiry and in her report dated 09.11.2009, she concluded that 65 families of Pilathu Village are eligible to get kattunayakan community certificate. Thereafter, the District Level Vigilance Committee / District Collector, Dindigul, by proceedings dated 08.11.2011, considering the reports of the Tahsildar, Vedasandur, and the Anthropologist directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, to issue kattunayakan community certificates to 65 families living in Pilathu Village, Vaalichettipatti. Based on the said proceedings, the petitioner who is hailing from Pilathu village, has been issued with a community certificate dated 10.11.2011 certifying him as belong to kattunayakkan community. On the strength of the said certificate, the petitioner joined the Police Department. 9.When the genuineness of the said community certificate of the petitioner was doubted, again the 5th respondent/Vigilance Cell, based on the deposition of the witnesses and documents collected, reports of the Anthropologist and Sub Collector, Palani, concluded that Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022the petitioner belongs to Hindu Kattunayakkan Scheduled Tribe community. However, without even assigning any reason as to why it disregarded the report of the Vigilance Cell, the 2nd respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee by impugned order held that the petitioner's community certificate dated 10.11.2011 is not correct. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said approach of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary in view of the judgment of this Court in E.Karthikeyan's case (supra), wherein, the Division Bench has held as under:''27.The other reason assigned is that the petitioner's father had been called upon for an enquiry on 20.09.2021 and that the State Level Scrutiny Committee had held that in respect of the claim of the petitioner's father, it had held in negative by its order dated 20.10.2021 (which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.5237 of 2022). There has been no reason assigned by the first respondent Committee as to why it has disregarded the report of the District Level Vigilance Cell. It would be useful to point out that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court had held that when the District Level Vigilance Cell had submitted a favourable Report, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall not proceed further but to pass orders. In the present case, in spite of the District Level Vigilance Committee having given a favourable Report, the first respondent State Level Scrutiny Committee had proceeded further that too without assigning any reason whatsoever as to why it has disregarded the Report of the Vigilance Cell. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the order impugned in W.P.No.2828 of 2022 is liable to be set aside.''Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 202210.In the impugned order, though the 2nd respondent narrated the earlier proceedings regarding the claim of villagers in Pilathu village and the consequential decision taken thereon, it has not even adverted to the same while considering the case of the petitioner who also hails from Pilathu village. Thus, there is a non application of mind on the part of the 2nd respondent.11.For all the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2022 in No.17542/CV-3(1)/2018-4, are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.] 20.03.2025 Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NobalaTo1. The Director,Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.Page No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 20222. The State Level Scrutiny Committee-II,Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,Secretariat, Chennai-9.3. The District Collector,Dindigul District,Dindigul.4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Palani,Dindigul District.5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,District Crime Records Bureau – In-charge,Social Justice and Human Rights,SC/ST Vigilance Cell,Dindigul. Page No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022J.NISHA BANU, J.ANDS.SRIMATHY, J.balaORDER MADE INW.P(MD)No.21433 of 2022DATED : 20.03.2025Page No.12 of 12