M.Shanthi v. The Chairman

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.) The order of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee dated

04.06.2019, cancelling the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶2The petitioner states that she belongs to Kattunayakan community. Her father, brother and relatives hold certificates stating that their family belonged to Kattunayakan community. The petitioner was also granted Kattunayakan community certificate. Under the strength of the said certificate, the petitioner secured a Central Government job. The certificate was questioned and the matter was referred to the District Collector for conducting enquiry.

¶3The District Collector conducted enquiry by affording sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioner. The report of the District Collector, Madurai dated 23.12.1995 reveals that the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer was examined on 27.06.1994. The petitioner was given personal hearing on several occasions on 14.08.1995, 04.09.1995, 09.10.1995,

06.11.1995 and 27.11.1995 and the petitioner, though received all the notices, have not filed any document to establish that she belongs to Kattunayakan community. Despite the opportunity given by the District Collector, the petitioner has failed to establish her case before the District Collector and consequently, the District Collector submitted a report holding that the petitioner has submitted a false certificate with a motive to cheat the Government and recommended for criminal prosecution including the officials who have granted such false certificates. A criminal case was also registered.

¶4The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The State Level Scrutiny Committee independently adjudicated the issues by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The Committee has considered the findings of the District Collector and the documents made available on record. The findings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee reveals that the certificate issued to the parents of the petitioner shows that the family belonged to "Thoti", which is a scheduled caste community. However, the petitioner was appointed under the scheduled tribe category, more specifically, the post was referred for scheduled tribe candidates. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows: thpir vz; jdpahpd; tpsf;f fbjk; ehs; 14.05.2019 khepy $HNehf;Ff; FO II KbT W.P.rMi).No.15917oofo2019

¶5Nkw;gb SC/ST kz;ly Jiz fz;fhzpgg; hsH

(DSP) mtHfspd; jy gs;spg;gjpNtl;by; jdpahpd; tprhuizapd;NghJ njhpa ngw;NwhH $Wk; [hjp kl;LNk te;j vdJ mj;ij kfd ; gjpag;gl;Ls;sJ. Mdhy; C.kJiutPud; j/ng jdpahpd; mj;ij/khkd; mtH rpd;idah mtHfspd; VIIIo "Njhl;b" vd;Dk; [hjpia tFg;G gapd;w jpUts;StH Nrh;e;jtH vd;W jk;ik gs;sp rhd;W gjpNtl;by; milahsk; nfhzL; s;shH. jtWjyhf mtUila rhjp mJ jtWjyhf gjptplg; ",e;J Njhl;b SC" vd;W gl;Ls;sJ vdTk;> gbg;g-wpT gjptplg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,y;yhj fhuzj;jhy; mt;thW gjpag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJk;6. vq;fs; jhj;jh> ghl;b Vw;fj;jf;fjhf ,y;iy.fhyj;jpy; mtHfSf;F xUtUf;F jdJ [hjp vJ gbg;gwpT ,y;yhj vdW; njhptjw;F gbg;gwpT fhuzj;jhy; mtHfs; Njitapy;iy. NkYk; jdpaH gpiogG; f;fhf nra;j fhl;Lehaf;fd; r%fj;ij njhopiy itj;J gs;sp Nrh;e;jtuhapUg;gpd; mtUila rhd;wpjo; (gjpNtl;by;) mj;ij/khkd; jq;fis ,e;J Njhl;b vdW; Njhl;b vd;W $w jtWjyhf gjpT mtrpak; ,y;iy.nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gij jho;ikAld; njhptpj;J nfhs;fpNwd;. Pageo5oofo11

¶10SC/ST kJiu kz;ly Vigilance Cell DSP mtHfspd; jy tprhuizapd; NghJ vdJ

,uj;j

top cwtpdHfshd

¶1jpU.r.fz;izah j/ng rf;fughz;b>

¶2jpU.g.Mz;bghz;b j/ng godpahz;b

¶3gp.uh[_ j/ng gpr;ir (vdJ mj;ij kfd;)

¶4rp.kJiutPud; j/ng rpd;idah MfpNahHfs; ehd; ,e;J fhl;Lehaf;fd;

rhjpia rhHe;jtH vd;W thf;F%yk; nfhLj;jij

ghprPyid nra;ahky; jd;dpr;irahf ehd; ,e;J fhl;Lehaf;fd; rhjpia rhHe;jtH my;y vd;W khepy $HNehf;F FOtpw;F

mwpf;ifahf mDg;gp cs;shH. me;j mwpf;ifia

kl;Lk; mbg;gilahf

itj;J khepy

$HNehf;Ff;FO Miz vz; 14309/C VIII/2009 ehs; 16.11.2015y; jpUkjp k.rhe;jp vd;gtH ,e;J fhl;Lehaf;fd;

rhjpia NrHe;jtH my;y vd;W Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;lJ. ,Ug;gpDk; jdpahpd; ,uj;j rk;ge;jkhd

cwTfspd; rhd;wpjo;fspd; fhl;Lehaf;fd; vd;W gjpag;gltpy;iy> khwhf Njhl;b kw;Wk; je;ijapd; [hjp

`hp[d;

vd;W gjpag;gl;Ls;sJ.

¶5Considering the report of the District Collector and after adjudicating the issues independently on merits, the State Level Scrutiny Committee made a finding that the petitioner does not belong to "Kattunayakan" scheduled tribe community form of caste certificate in Sl.No.3373/81 from the Tahsildar, Madurai South on 02.06.1981 and therefore, the said certificate was cancelled and directed to be confiscated from the petitioner. The State Level Scrutiny Committee further considered the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kumari Maduri Patil reported in JT.1994(5) SC 488. The Government Order issued in G.O.(2D).No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV1) Department dated 12.09.2007 was also considered and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court and the Government were followed by the Committee while taking such a decision.

¶6The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the relatives of the petitioner have been already granted "Kattunayakan" community certificate. Those documents placed by the petitioner were not considered and therefore, the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee is perverse and to be set aside.

¶7The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, per contra, opposed the said contention by stating that the Committee has followed the procedures as contemplated in the Government Order and based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Kumari Maduri Patil's case. Thus, the Writ Petition is to be rejected.

¶8The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure the processes, through which a decision has been taken by the competent authority, is in consonance with the statutes and rules in force, but not the decision itself. The High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the complex nature of facts and circumstances, where verification of original documents, evidences are required. In the event of extending the scope of judicial review, there is a possibility of miscarriage of justice and in the present case, such an elaborate enquiry was conducted by the District Collector by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The State Level Scrutiny Committee also afforded opportunity independently and scrutinized the documents and evidences along with the findings of the report submitted by the District Collector. Beyond the said documents, the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority and examine the family tree produced by the petitioner or to consider the community certificate issued in favour of the family members of the petitioner. Such an exercise is unnecessary and beyond the scope of the power of judicial review conferred under the Constitution.

¶9In the present case, the procedures as contemplated were scrupulously followed by the authorities. The District Collector conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. The said report was considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the State Level Scrutiny Committee independently afforded opportunity and considered the documents and evidences available on record. That being the factum, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned and therefore, the same stands confirmed. The respondents are at liberty to proceed with all further actions in the manner known to law.

¶10Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(S.M.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.)

01.11.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm To

1.The Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee, Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

4.The Postmaster General, Southern Region, Madurai – 625 002.

5.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai Division, Madurai – 625 002. S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J. Lm

01.11.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN and W.M.P.(MD).No.17482 of 2022 M.Shanthi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee, Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Postmaster General, Southern Region, Madurai – 625 002. 5.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai Division, Madurai – 625 002. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings No. 14309/CVIII/2009-21 dated 04.06.2019, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to issue a valid Kattunayakan Community Certificate to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vignesh for Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.G.Rajaraman Central Government Standing Counsel