1. Appointment to public service — Dispute over validity of community certificate issued by Tehsildar prior to change in issuing authority — Mandamus sought for acceptance of certificate. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1127
1997(8) Supreme 127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
R. Kandasamy -Appellant
versus
The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust.-Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5935 of 1997
Decided on 22-8-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, J.B. Ravi and M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S. Balakrishnan and Subramanium Prasad, Advocates.
Important Points
Community Certificates issued by Tehsildars to Scheduled Tribe candidates prior to 11.11.1989 are valid for public service appointments. Authorities cannot insist on a fresh certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer unless the original certificate is cancelled.
Subject
Employment Law - Discrimination
Act Referred
Headnote
COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE-Community Certificate issued by Tehsildar dated 10.3.1987 produced by Appellant for port of Mazdoor declared not to be taken into consideration-Appellant was directed to produce latest original Community Certificate from Revenue Divisional Officer-G.O.M.S. dated 11.11.1989 provided that certificate required to be produced was from Revenue Divisional Officer-Communication from Joint Secretary to the State Govt. showed that Community Certificates issued by Tehsildar prior to 11.11.1989 were valid certificates-Community Certificate issued to appellant by Tehsildar in 1987 was a good and valid certificate-Authorities could not have declined to take that into consideration-Mandamus was liable to be issued. (Paras 5 to 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a community certificate issued by a Tehsildar prior to the mandate requiring certificates from the Revenue Divisional Officer remains valid for appointment. (Para 2 )
3. Combined reading of government order and subsequent clarification confirms that certificates issued by Tehsildars before the specified date remain valid unless cancelled. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Community certificates issued by Tehsildars to Scheduled Tribe candidates prior to the change in issuing authority are valid unless specifically cancelled. (Para 6 )
5. High Court orders set aside — Mandamus issued directing the respondent to consider the community certificate issued by the Tehsildar. (Para 7 )
6. Are community certificates issued by Tehsildars before the mandate for Revenue Divisional Officer certificates still valid?
Yes, community certificates issued to Scheduled Tribe candidates by Tehsildars prior to 11.11.89 are valid for all purposes, provided they have not been cancelled. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Can an authority insist on a fresh community certificate from a Revenue Divisional Officer if a valid Tehsildar certificate issued before the rule change exists?
No, authorities cannot decline to consider a valid certificate issued by a Tehsildar prior to the rule change and insist upon a fresh certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer. (Para 6 )
8. Does the court's validation of a certificate's legal status imply a finding on its genuineness?
No, the legal validity of the issuing authority is distinct from the genuineness of the document. If genuineness is doubted, the authority may hold a proper enquiry. (Para 8 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Madras seeking a Mandamus to the Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust - respondent herein to accept the Community Certificate of the appellant dated 10.3.1987, issued by the Tehsildar, Mambalam, for the purpose of his appointment as a Mazdoor in the Madras Port Trust. It appears that the appellant was called for an interview for appointment to the post of Mazdoor by the respondent by the letter dated 19th August, 1995 and subsequently he was called to appear for an interview on 17th November, 1995 together with all the testimonials and certificates. The appellant appeared before the respondent and produced the relevant documents including the Community Certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Mambalam, Madras, dated 10.3.1987. That certificate was not acceptable by the Port Trust and on 20th November, 1995, the respondent-Port Trust required the appellant to produce "latest original Community Certificate" from the Revenue Divisional Officer. The request of the appellant to accept the certificate issued by the Tehsildar in 1987 and not to insist upon the production of a fresh certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer was turned down and the appellant was told that if he did not produce the certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer on or before 30th December, 1995, his name would be left out of consideration for appointment. The appellant at that stage approached the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court on 8th February, 1996, referred to G.O.M.S. No. 2137 dated 11.11.89 to hold that the certificate required to be produced was from the Revenue Divisional Officer and that the certificate issued by the Tehsildar was not a valid certificate. The learned Single Judge accordingly dismissed the writ petition and declined to issue Mandamus, as prayed for.
3. A Writ Appeal was filed. That Writ Appeal came to be dismissed on 29th February, 1996 by the Division Bench. It is these two orders which have been put in issue before us in this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, Paragraph 4 of the G.O.M.S. No 2137 dated 11.11.89 reads thus :
"The Govt. directs that the Community Certificates in respect of all communities included in the list of scheduled Tribes, for the purpose of appointments in public Services under Central and State Govts., Public Sector Undertakings, quasi Govt. institutions, Banks etc., shall hereafter, be issued only by the Revenue Divisional Officers."
5. On a doubt being raised regarding the validity of certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 3.4.1991 informed the Collectors of various districts in Tamil Nadu that "the permanent Community Certificate issued to Scheduled Tribes by Tehsildars up 11.11.89 is valid." This communication had been placed on record in the High Court. From a combined reading of G.O.M.S. No. 2137 dated 11.11.89 and letter of the Joint Secretary dated 3.4.1991, (supra) it follows that whereas a Community Certificate after 11.11.89 is required to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, but the Community Certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 are valid certificates. In view of this position, it was not proper for the respondent to have insisted upon a fresh certificate to be produced by the appellant from the Revenue Divisional Officer as admittedly the Community Certificate produced by the appellant had been issued by the Tehsildar concerned in 1987, that is, prior to 11.11.89.
6. In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all purposes so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer.
7. The judgments of the High Cou
