Clear pronouncement by Supreme Court must be treated as binding by all Courts in India.

(Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari.)

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

Whether the suit in Civil Court for declaration that a person belongs to a particular community and for mandatory injunction, directing the authorities to issue community certificate in pursuance of the said declaration and it is binding on the said authorities, is maintainable or not?

The above is the question, posed before this Full Bench.

2. The facts leading to the reference of the point in issue to this Full Bench for determination, in short, are as follows:

"(i) Writ petitioners, claiming themselves to be belonging to Kattunaicken community, which is a Scheduled Tribe, on the basis of the community certificates obtained from the Tahsildar, applied for jobs in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy, and got the same. A few years later, the management, after receipt of some information, decided to verify the genuineness of the certificates and sent the said community certificates for verification to the District Collector.

(ii) The District Collector verified the said community certificates through a discreet enquiry and sent a report to the management that the petitioners do not belong to Kattunaicken community, a Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, the management initiated disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioners. Without facing the disciplinary proceedings, the writ petitioners challenged the said proceedings in writ petitions before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, on 18.08.1995, dismissed those writ petitions.

(iii) In the meantime, the management, instead of pursuing the disciplinary proceedings, directed the petitioners to get fresh community certificates from the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority. Accordingly, the writ petitioners made applications to the Revenue Divisional Officer, requesting for issuance of community certificates to the effect that they belong to Kattunaicken community. When the said applications were pending before the RDO, the petitioners filed civil suits before the District Munsif Court, Trichy, for a declaration that they belong to Kattunaicken community, a Scheduled Tribe, and for mandatory injunction, directing the RDO to issue community certificates to that effect. Ultimately, the petitioners obtained ex parte decree on 10.06.1996.

(iv) Thereupon, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this High Court, seeking for a direction to the RDO to issue community certificates in their favour, by disposing of the applications pending before him. The High Court, however, on 11.03.1999, declined to give such a direction and merely directed the RDO to dispose of the applications of the petitioners expeditiously on merits, in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said order, the RDO conducted an enquiry and concluded that the petitioners do not belong to Kattunaicken community and, consequently, rejected their applications. Following the same, the services of the writ petitioners were terminated by the management by the orders dated 26.09.1998 and confirmed in appeal by the higher authority on 18.11.1998. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed, seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari, for quashing the said orders of termination and confirmation.

(v) The matters came up before a learned single Judge. The main argument advanced before the learned single Judge in these Writ Petitions was that the Civil Court had already passed an ex parte decree in favour of the petitioners, declaring that they belong to Kattunaicken community, a Scheduled Tribe, and issued mandatory injunction to the RDO, directing him to issue community certificates to the petitioners and since the said decree is binding on the RDO, the RDO ought to have issued community certificates in favour of the petitioners and, as such, the order of RDO, rejecting the applications of the petitioners, and, consequently, the orders