Valid community certificate submitted by petitioner.

1. Heard all the parties.

2. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent dated 20.4.1992 and bearing No.Na.Ka.Adi.8-126294/87 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to issue a community certificate stating the petition belongs to the Malaikuravan community.

3. In brief, the petitioner who was appointed as a temporary C & W Khalasi in the year 1987 was asked to produce community certificate for the vacancy reserved for scheduled tribes as she claims that she belongs to Malaikuravan community which is notified as one of the scheduled tribes community. In pursuant to her appointment, the third respondent conducted an enquiry to verify the community of the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner was asked to appear before the third respondent on 7.11.1981 and on which date she produced the following evidence to show that she belongs to Malaikuravan community:

(1) Community certificate dated 8.1.1985 issued to her certifying that she belongs to Malaikuravan community.

(2) Community certificate dated 24.8.1981 certifying that her husband Gnanavan belongs to Malaikuravan community.

(3) Community certificate dated 9.4.1986 certifying that her father-in-law also belongs to Malaikuravan community, and

(4) Community certificate dated 13.9.1991 certifying that her brother-in-law belongs to Malaikuravan community.

However, the petitioner was again asked to appear before the third respondent on 19.11.1990 with a direction to produce the original community certificate dated 8.1.1985 issued by the third respondent and any other document prior to 1950 and also to produce the Birth extract or transfer certificate issued by the educational institution to show that her father and mother belong to Malaikuravan community. However, the respondents refused to rely upon the documents produced by the petitioner on the ground the petitioner could not produce any documentary evidence registered prior to 1950 and therefore, refused to rely upon the document produced by her which are obtained subsequent to 1991 holding that they are nothing but after thoughts. Therefore, it appears that the Revenue Divisional Officer in his report dated 30.1.1982 came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Malaikuravan community. On the basis of the said report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30.1.1982, the Collector by his proceedings dated 20.4.1992, which is impugned in this writ petition, cancelled the original community certificate issued to the petitioner on 8.1.1985. Hence, the above writ petition.

4. Mrs.Radhikakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Government themselves by their proceedings dated 8.3.1983 satisfied that it is difficult to produce documents by Malaikuravan community people as they are nomadic always moving from one place to other. Therefore, the authorities were directed to hold local enquiry before issuing community certificate to the persons who claim that they belong to Malaikuravan community. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no local enquiry was conducted by the second and third respondents before passing the impugned order. She further contended that the impugned proceedings also violates the principles of natural justice as the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30.1.1982 was not furnished to the petitioner; the Tahsildar refused to reply upon the community certificates issued to her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law, which were not cancelled by the authorities in the manner known to law; the respondent has failed to appreciate the fact that the parents of the petitioner are not more and in any event the direction of the respondents to produce the documents registered prior to 1950, is unreasonable and contrary to the Government letter dated 8.3.1983 where the Government itself satisfied that in the case of Malaikur