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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 1852

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
S. Namachivayam
Versus
The Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Rep. by its General Manager
W.A. No. 1148 OF 2008 & M.P. No. 1 of 2008
Decided On : 21-04-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:V. Vijayashankar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:B.T. Seshadri, Advocate.

Ratio:
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant a declaration in respect of the status of a person as a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.342-Constitution (Scheduled Tribes), Order, 1950-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908)-Sec.9-Reservation-Scheduled Tribe-Community certificate-Cancellation-Community-Status-Declaration-Civil Court-Jurisdiction-Community certificate issued to the appellant was cancelled by the District Collector after fresh enquiry-On such cancellation, the respondent/employer began the proceeding for his termination-Appellant challenged the order of cancellation passed by District Collector in civil court which granted an decree exparte in his favour-On such decree, the appellant sought for quashing the proceeding of the respondent which was dismissed by the Single Judge-In an appeal by the appellant, he contended that once the civil Court declared his community status, the order of the District Collector became non-est and the proceeding before the respondent could not be proceeded-Respondent contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter of deciding the community of the candidates and the decree of the Civil Court was not binding on the respondent-Held, in the matter of deciding the community of a person, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit-Appeal was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to submit his explanation to the respondent.

        (B)Constitution of India-Art.342-Constitution (Scheduled Tribes), Order, 1950-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908)-Sec.9-Reservation-Scheduled Tribe-Community certificate-Community-Status-Declaration-Civil Court-Jurisdiction- Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant a declaration in respect of the status of a person as a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

        Article 342 of the Constitution of India provides for specifying the tribes or tribal communities or part of or groups within tribes or tribal communities to be declared as Scheduled Tribes in relation to a particular State. Therefore, the only authority to declare the status of Scheduled Tribe is the President of India. The Civil Court has absolutely no jurisdiction to grant a declaration in respect of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.

       Para 15

       

Judgment :-

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 12 June, 2008 in W.P.No.16468 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge negatived the request of the appellant to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet issued to him on 23 September, 1998, in view of the decree granted by the Civil Court in O.S.No.274 of 1996.

2. The appellant was appointed as an unskilled labourer in the Cold Mill Production Unit of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited at Trichirappalli under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. At the time of his appointment, he had produced a community certificate indicating that he belonged to Konda Reddy Community notified as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes), Order, 1950 issued by the President under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur dated 21 September, 1977 was counter signed by the Village Munsif and the Revenue Inspector. Subsequently, as per the directions of the employer, another community certificate was produced on 19 January, 1979 obtained from the First Class Magistrate, Kulithalai. The appellant was later promoted as a semi-skilled worker.

3. While so, an enquiry was commenced in the year 1988 with respect to the community status of the petitioner on the basis of anonymous petitions received from third parties. The District Collector, Trichirappali conducted the enquiry and passed an order cancelling the community certificate issued to the appellant. The said order was challenged by the appellant along with others in W.P.No.5724 of 1991. The said writ petition was allowed with liberty to the authorities to conduct fresh enquiry. Subsequently, the District Collector conducted fresh enquiry and passed an order on 7 February,1991 confirming the earlier order of cancellation. Since the District Collector has cancelled the Community Certificate of other individuals also, batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court.

4. The appellant along with others filed a writ petition in W.P.No.603 of 1995. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court taking note of the Civil Suits filed by some of the aggrieved parties. The appellant was also given liberty to file a Civil Suit. Accordingly, he filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.274 of 1996 and the said suit was decreed as per judgment and decree dated 10 July, 1997.

5. Though, initially a charge memo was issued in the year 1988 on the basis of the order passed by the District Collector, Trichirappalli cancelling the community certificate, no follow up action was taken to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. However the respondent initiated further action after the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.274 of 1996 and therefore the appellant filed a writ petition to quash the charge memo dated 23 September, 1988.

6. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the District Collector in the matter of cancellation of community certificate and as such concluded that no case was made out to quash the charge memo. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. It is the said order which is impugned in this writ appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was only on the basis of the liberty granted by this court in Writ Petition No.603 of 1995, the appellant has filed a civil suit and therefore the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit is liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, the appellant has obtained a valid decree from a civil court and so long as the said decree stands, it was not open to the respondent to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the non-existing order passed by the District Collector. The learned counsel further contended that there was no occasion for the appellant to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and














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