Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
S. Natarajan - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Tuticorin and Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 1884 of 1997, 9849-50 of 1998 and W.M.P. Nos. 3145-46 of 1997 and 15071-72 of 1998
Decided On : 10 November 1998
COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE - VALIDITY - REPEATED VERIFICATION - HARASSMENT - JURISDICTION - CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE - COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR PRIOR TO 11-11-1989 IS VALID AND GOOD FOR ALL PURPOSES - REPEATED ENQUIRY IS BARRED - AUTHORITIES ARE COMPETENT TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CERTIFICATE ON THE REQUEST OF THE EMPLOYER, ONCE A REPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED THAT THE CERTIFICATE IS GENUINE, THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANNOT BE FURTHER HARASSED TO PROVE HIS CASE OR COMMUNITY IN ANY OTHER MANNER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, employed in a nationalized bank, obtained employment based on his community certificate as a member of the Konda Reddy community, a recognized Scheduled Tribe. He produced community certificates issued by the Commissioner of Panchayat Union and the Tahsildar. The bank, seeking verification, initiated proceedings, and revenue authorities confirmed petitioner's community status. Years later, when petitioner applied for community certificates for his children, the District Collector ordered a fresh enquiry, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar in 1986 was valid and genuine. The authorities had already verified and accepted the certificate, and there was no change in circumstances to warrant a fresh enquiry. The court relied on precedents establishing that once a community certificate is issued and verified, repeated verification is barred unless specific circumstances call for further investigation. The court also held that the District Collector's reopening of the matter was improper and unwarranted.
Issues: 1. Whether repeated verification of a community certificate is permissible after it has been verified and accepted by the authorities. 2. Whether the District Collector has the jurisdiction to order a fresh enquiry into the community status of an individual whose certificate has already been verified and accepted.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A community certificate issued by an empowered public authority under seal continues to be a valid document until it is canceled by the issuing authority or a superior authority. 2. The contents of a community certificate are to be treated as correct, and public authorities and institutions bound by instructions relating to such certificates are bound to act upon them unless they are canceled. 3. Authorities are competent to verify the correctness of a certificate on the request of the employer, but once a report is received that the certificate is genuine, the certificate holder cannot be further harassed to prove their community in any other manner. 4. Repeated enquiry into the genuineness of a community certificate is barred unless specific circumstances call for further investigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for reopening the verification of his community status. The court directed the respondents to issue community certificates to the petitioner's children within ten days.
The Order of the Court was as follows :
W.P. 1884 of 1997 is filed by one S. Natarajan, who is the father of petitioners in W.P. 9849 and 9850 of 1998.
2. In the writ petition filed by the father, he sought for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ of order calling for the records relating to the proceedings in reference No. E.5.83341/96, dated 19-11-1996 of first respondent and consequential communication No. B1/8672/96 dated 17-12-1996 of second respondent and quash the orders passed therein and forbear respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner reopening the verification of petitioner's community status and pass such further orders.
3. In the affidavit, it is stated that petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community which is one of the communities listed as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, passed by the President by virtue of the powers conferred upon him under Article 342 of Constitution of India.
In the year 1978, third respondent bank called for application for the post of clerical cadre to which petitioner applied under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Petitioner was selected and he joined third respondent Bank on 28-11-1978. At the time of joining duty petitioner produced community certificate obtained from the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Kayattar under whose jurisdiction petitioner's native village Chockalingapuram falls. After his appointment his services were confirmed after completion of probation period.
4. Subsequently, petitioner also produced another community certificate dated 27-7-1986 issued by Tahsildar, Koilpatti wherein also it was declared that petitioner belongs to Konda Reddi community. Petitioner was promoted as sub-accountant during 1985 and now petitioner is employed in the main branch of third respondent bank.
5. In 1987, the Bank referred his community certificate for verification to first respondent. First respondent in turn referred the matter to District Revenue Officer, Chidambaranar District and Revenue Divisional Officer, Koilpatti, who held detailed enquiry. Petitioner appeared before various revenue authorities and produced various documents in support of his claim. First respondent through his report dated 6-12-1988, informed third respondent that petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community. Even at that time, even though there was no scope for second enquiry but petitioner participated in the same and authorities also confirmed that he belongs to Konda Reddy Community.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Kovilpatti but he has been living in Madras for the past 22 years. From the date of joining third respondent Bank, his family continues to live in Madras except for a brief period of three years due to his transfer on two occasions in 1985-86 and 1992-94. Even at that time, his family was living in Madras. Petitioner got two children, one daughter and one son studying plus two and 8th standard respectively. He moved an application before Collector's office Madras for issuance of community certificate for his children for educational purpose. Collector's office referred the application to first respondent with a request to forward the same to second respondent since petitioner's native place falls at Kovilpatti, even though 4th respondent is competent to issue the community certificate since his family is residing at Madras and their names are also included in the electoral rolls of Madras.
7. As per the directions of the first respondent, second respondent again directed petitioner to appear vide communication dated 8-9-96 with regard to issuance of community certificate in favour of his children. Petitioner again appeared before second respondent and produced all relevant documents and informed the second respondent about the favourable findings already arrived at by revenue officials. Petitioner was not informed about what has happened after enquiry in the office of second respondent.
8. The reaso
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
