L. Ushadevi vs Union of India - 2007 Supreme(SC) 613

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(SC) 613

2007(3) Supreme 907
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
L. Ushadevi — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2004
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 258, 256 and 257 of 2004
Decided on 27-4-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : E. Padmanabhan, Sr. Advocate, P.S. Narasimha and Nishe Rajen Shonker (for M/s. T.T.K. Deepak & Co.), Advocates.
For the Respondents : A. Sharan, ASG., Ms. Shilpa Singh, V.K. Verma, Amit A. Tiwari and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates.
For the State of Kerala : G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Ashok Bhan, Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, D.S. Mahra, P. Parmeswaran, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, Ms. Rachna Gupta, A.V. Rangam and Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocates.

Headnote:Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 6 and 8 — Cancellation of Caste Certificate — Show cause issued to appellant for cancellation of Caste Certificate — Konda Reddi was notified as a Scheduled Tribe in Presidential Order for State of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala — Appellant originally nailed from State of Tamil Nadu but had migrated to State of Kerala since her forefathers — She had obtained appointment in a statutory body controlled by Central Govt. on basis of Caste Certificate — Question whether Authorities on State of Kerala could have jurisdiction to cancel certificate granted by State of Tamil Nadu and or that Act applied in regard to employees of State Govt. and not to employees of Govt. of India — Act was complete Code by itself — Appellants could not be said to be outside the purview of Act — Jurisdiction of a Scrutiny Committee under the Act was of wide amplitude — No reason to interfere with order of High Court directing consideration of matter afresh.
       Held : The Act is a complete code by itself. ‘Appointment in public service’ has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean a service or post under the State or Central Government and includes appointment to any post of the State or Central Government undertakings. A ‘community certificate’ has been defined to mean the certificate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed form indicating therein the caste or tribe to which he belongs, as the case may be. Section 2(l) of the Act assigns the same meaning to ‘Scheduled Castes’ and ‘Scheduled Tribes’ which have respectively been assigned to them in clause (24) and clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. (Para 12)
       It is, therefore, not a case where the appellants herein were outside the purview of the Act. Appellants are residents of the State of Kerala. It is difficult to comprehend as to how they obtained caste community certificate from the authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu. The jurisdiction of a Scrutiny Committee under the Act is of wide amplitude. When a competent statutory authority invokes its jurisdiction, we fail to understand as to why the appellants could not submit themselves to the said jurisdiction. (Paras 14 to 16)
       At one point of time, the controversy as to whether the jurisdiction to deal with such a matter, as the employees concerned were holding posts under the Central Government, might be relevant. The courts might have directed the Central Government to hold an investigation in relation thereto. But, once the legislature of a State enacts an Act which is a self contained code, it might not have been necessary for the court to refer the matter again to the Central Government. It is true that in the case of the appellant, the Kerala High Court by an order dated 25.07.1989 directed the Government of India to resolve the doubt as to whether the appellant therein belonged to the Kondareddy caste, but, in our opinion, the same could not have been a ground for setting aside the order of the State Government. We, however, do not wish to dwell thereupon. As the High Court has directed consideration of the matter afresh, we do not intend to say any more in this behalf. We would, however, direct the Committee, keeping in view the fact that the matters are pending for a long time, to determine the question, as expeditiously as possible. (Paras 18 to 21)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. — These appeals involve interpretation and/or application of the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”).

2. The fact of the matter is being noticed from Civil Appeal No. 258 of 2004.

3. Konda Reddi is notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential order for the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Appellant originally hails from the State of Tamil Nadu. Her forefathers admittedly migrated to the State of Kerala. She was appointed as Quality Supervisor in the Marine Products Export Development Authority - Respondent No. 1 herein, which is a statutory body controlled by the Central Government. Her appointment was made on the basis of the caste certificate granted in her favour. On or about 11.12.1980, a show cause notice was issued to her to show cause as to why her certificate shall not be cancelled. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against her. Her service was terminated but the said order was set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court.

4. In other civil appeals also, relying on or on the basis of the purported certificates issued in their favour, the appellants obtained their appointments in the Central Government or public sector undertakings. Notices were served on them to show cause as to why their appointments shall not be cancelled. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against them. Their services were terminated but the same were set aside by the Tribunal.

5. The questions which have been raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants are:

(i) The Act having contained provisions of cancellation of certificates granted by the authorities of the State of Kerala only, they have no jurisdiction to cancel a certificate granted by the State of Tamil Nadu.

(ii) The Act applies only in regard to the employees of the State Government and not to the employees of the Government of India or their institutions.

6. The Act was enacted to provide for and regulate the issue of community certificates to member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala. In terms of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, a member of a tribe may be notified as Scheduled Tribe for a particular State. ‘Konda tribe’ is admittedly notified as Scheduled Tribe inter alia in the State of Kerala.

7. The legislatures of various States as also this Court had been noticing the misuse or wrong use of such certificates. Such a question came up for consideration before this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 241] wherein inter alia it was directed to constitute appropriate committees for determining the question as to whether a certificate had wrongly been obtained and the procedures were laid down for the purpose of cancellation thereof.

8. Scrutiny Committees thereafter came to be constituted by various States by making enactments in that behalf. Consequences flowing from cancellation of such certificates were also laid down.

9. The question in regard to the power of such Committees recently came up for consideration before this Court in State of Maharashtra and Others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr. [2006 (10) SCALE 575 : 2007 (1) SCC 80] wherein referring to Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), it was held:

“The said decision, therefore, is also an authority for the proposition that the Committee can go into the question as to whether a caste certificate has rightly been issued or not. The authorities concerned were also found to have some role to play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate.”

10. This Court furthermore noticed that there are decisions and decisions in regard to grant of actual relief. [See also State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Sanjay K. Nimje, 2007 AIR SCW 1575]

11. Although the learned counsel for the parties have cited cert

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 613

Cases Referred (4)