Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 1073
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
S.Madhuri - Appellant
Versus
State Level Scrutiny Committee and Others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.24760 of 2002 AND W.P.M.P.NOs.34038 & 34039 OF 2002
Decided On : 26 September 2002
The central legal point established in the judgment is that re-conversion to Hinduism, if accepted by the community, entitles the individual to reservation benefits as a member of the community.
Headnote:
Re-conversion to Hinduism - Scheduled Caste - 2002(1)CTC 264, AIR 2002 SC 681, (2002)2 M.L.J. 74 - The court discussed the legal framework surrounding the re-conversion to Hinduism and its implications on the entitlement to reservation benefits. Key legal provisions include the principles of natural justice, the acceptance of re-conversion to Hinduism, and the availability of reservation benefits for re-converted individuals.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, belonging to the Adi Dravidar Community, sought to challenge the cancellation of her Community Certificate after re-converting to Hinduism. The District and State Level Committees rejected her plea without properly considering the legal question of re-conversion to Hinduism.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's re-conversion to Hinduism was valid and entitled her to the benefits of reservation as a member of the Adi Dravida Community. The District and State Level Committees' rejection of her plea was deemed perverse and not in accordance with the legal principles established by previous judgments.
Issues: The key issue was whether a person re-converted to Hinduism is entitled to reservation benefits, and whether the District and State Level Committees properly considered the legal question of re-conversion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that re-conversion to Hinduism, if accepted and admitted within the community, is permissible and entitles the individual to reservation benefits. The rejection of the petitioner's plea by the Committees without proper consideration of the legal question was deemed unjust.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, quashing the orders of the District and State Level Committees, and granting the relief sought by the petitioner.
Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.
2. Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his Proceedings No.6120/Athi. Na.2/2000 dated 10.6.2002 confirming the order of the second respondent in his Proceedings No.K.5/48878/99 dated 10.11.1999 and quash the same.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that she belongs to Adi Dravidar Community and her forefathers got converted to Christianity; that when her mother died, her family decided to re-convert to Hinduism and they became Hindus by conversion, following the procedures; that her father Savarimuthu became Sundar, her sister Hema Naveernarani became Kavitha and the petitioner Merilin Perishaba became Madhuri, after conversion to Hinduism, to which they belong now.
4. The further case of the petitioner is that she applied for the Community Certificate after re-conversion and the same had been issued as scheduled Caste as on 19.6.1998; that she applied for the admission of M.B.B.S. Course and while doing M.B.B.S. Course in the fifth respondent's college, those who were ill-disposed with the family of the petitioner filed W.P. No.19319 of 1998 and the authorities concerned enquired the matter, even prior to a finality of a decision is rendered by this Court; that based on the Sub Collector's report, the second respondent, the District Vigilance Committee, sent notice for the appearance of the petitioner and her father; that they produced all the documents in support of their claim, but however, the second respondent passed orders cancelling the Community Certificate issued on 19.6.1998 by their order dated 10.11.1999; that as against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P. No.4240 of 2001, in which since this Court felt that there was an appeal remedy available, she had to withdraw the said writ petition and prefer an appeal before the first respondent Committee; that the said authority, by its order dated 10.6.2002, passed orders confirming the order of the second respondent, challenging which, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of writ petition.
5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in SUGANTHI SURESH KUMAR vs. JAGDEESHAN reported in AIR 2002 SC 681 wherein it has been held that `the law declared by the Supreme Court cannot be by-passed by High Court on ground that some point has not been considered'.
6. On the contrary, two judgments would be cited on the part of the respondents, the first one delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in M.PONNAMBALAM vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT, TIRUCHIRAPALLI AND 2 OTHERS reported in 2002(1)CTC 264 and the second one is an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 2.4.2002 made in W.P.Nos.10365 and 10573 of 2002.
7. So far as the first judgment cited above is concerned, it is held therein that "obtaining statements from villagers through discreet enquiries behind back of employee does not vitiate the enquiry and the principles of natural justice would be satisfied if copies of statements obtained in enquiry is put on notice to employee before final decision is taken. Opportunity given to furnish evidence in support of the fact that he is a member of the particular community and his participation in the enquiry conducted by the Collector and the cancellation of the community certificate is valid."
8. In the second judgment cited above, it is held:
"In the present case, in respect of the District Level Committee, the Supreme Court had not issued any directions and it is for the State Government to issue such administrative orders or instructions in respect of verification of social status claimed by the individuals residing within the District. In
