SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Mad) 279

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVARAJ PATIL
K. Suresh Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of T.N. and Others - Respondents
Writ Petn. No. 15205 of 1995
Decided On : 26 February 1996

Appearing Advocates:V. Ramajegadeesan, D. Krishnakumar, G.A.(W), Advocates.

Certificate issued prior to the order of Govt.Held, liable to be considered.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 226-Community Certificate-Validity of community certificate issued by Tahsildar prior to the change brought by Government resting power of issuing such certificate by revenue Divisional Officer-Held, certificate issued by Tahsildar prior to the date of over may be considered unless cancelled.

       

       

Judgment :-

The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus in this writ petition, directing the respondents to validate the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mayiladuthurai and accept the petitioner's community certificate treating the petitioner as a Scheduled Tribe belonging to Kattunaicken community.

2. The petitioner states that he studied Bachelor of Engineering, Mechanical Branch, in Alagappa Engineering College, Karaikudi from 1989 to 1993 and secured degree. While he was studying in the said college the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, the second respondent herein enquired about the community certificate of the petitioner as per the direction of the District Collector of Thanjavur. The petitioner while securing the seat in the engineering college had submitted his community certificate as Kattunaicken community, a Scheduled Tribe community. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after completion of the enquiry, confirmed that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, and therefore, he was allowed to complete the said degree course in the year 1993. The community certificate issued by the Tahsildar had not been cancelled.

3. The petitioner was called for an interview on 29-9-1994 by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tiruchirapalli. In order to attend the said interview he applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam to issue a community certificate as a Scheduled Tribe since the petitioner and his parents migrated from Mayiladuthurai to Kumbakonam and became permanent residents of Kumbakonam. But the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam declined to issue the said community certificate on the ground that the petitioner had to approach the R.D.O., Mayiladuthurai. In this process the petitioner lost a valuable chance of public employment. The father of the petitioner and his grandfather were given community certificates as belonging to Scheduled Tribe community stating that Kattunaicken community is a Scheduled Tribe community.

4. The R.D.O., Kumbakonam ought to have issued community certificate as sought for, relying on the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mayiladuthurai, as per G.O.Ms. No. 2137, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 11-11-1989. The R.D.O., Kumbakonam, during the year 1992 conducted and enquiry about the community of the petitioner as per the order of the District Collector, Thanjavur. After the completion of the enquiry he did not recommend for the cancellation of the community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Mayiladuthurai Thus the said certificate was allowed to be in force.

5. It is further submitted that now the Madras Refineries Ltd. have issued an interview card for Engineering Trainee and the petitioner was asked to produce community certificate before 10-11-1995. Subsequently the Railway Recruitment Board, Madras also called for an interview for Graduate Apprentice. The petitioner made representation to the R.D.O., Kumbakonam to issue a community certificate. As per the recent orders he is the competent person to issue such certificate but the R.D.O., Kumbakonam is not issuing the certificate to the petitioner on the ground that his parents had migrated from Mayiladuthurai. It is stated that the parents of the petitioner had migrated to Kumbakonam long back and there was nobody at Mayiladuthurai area. Such being the position, the R.D.O., Kumbakonam ought to have issued community certificate to the petitioner as sought for when the certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Mayiladuthurai was not cancelled. Community certificates issued to his father and grandfather being ancient documents, they could be very well relied upon to issue certificate to the petitioner. Under the circumstances. the petitioner has filed the writ petition for the relief as stated above.

6. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents.

7. The typed set of papers filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition show that a communi





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top