2013 Supreme(Mad) 1016
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J.
S. Ruhaiyah Begum
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by the Secretary to Government & Others
W.P. No. 2972 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 19-02-2013
For the Petitioner:V. Srikanth, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, P.S. Sivashanmuga Sundaram, AGP, R2 to R4, N.S. Nandakumar, Advocate.
Conversion by marriage does not automatically entitle a person to claim the community status of their spouse, and the specific community classification criteria outlined in government orders must be met for consideration as Backward Class (Muslim).
Headnote:
Conversion - Backward Class (Muslim) - G.O.Ms.No.85 BC, MBC and Minorities Welfare (BCC) Department, dated 29.07.2008 - The court discussed the validity of the petitioner's claim to be considered as Backward Class (Muslim) based on her conversion to Islam and marriage, and the relevant government orders and legal principles regarding conversion and community classification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to be treated as belonging to Backward Class (Muslim) for government service appointment based on her conversion to Islam and marriage. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's conversion and marriage did not entitle her to be considered as Backward Class (Muslim) as per the relevant government orders and legal principles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim to be considered as Backward Class (Muslim) based on her conversion and marriage was not valid, as she did not belong to the specific Muslim community listed in the relevant government order. The court also emphasized the legal principle that conversion by marriage does not automatically entitle a person to claim the community status of their spouse.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who converted to Islam and married a Muslim, could be considered as Backward Class (Muslim) for government service appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant government orders and legal principles regarding conversion, community classification, and the impact of marriage on community status. The court emphasized that the petitioner's conversion and marriage did not automatically entitle her to claim the community status of her husband.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's claim to be considered as Backward Class (Muslim) for government service appointment was rejected. The court held that the petitioner's conversion and marriage did not meet the criteria for classification as Backward Class (Muslim) as per the relevant legal provisions and government orders.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as one belonging to Backward Class (Muslim) for the purpose of appointment in Government service and to recruit her in any one of the post in the Combined Subordinate Services Examination-II within the stipulated period for which applications were called for vide notification issued by the third respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in notification No.18/2012, dated 02.05.2012.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was born to Hindu parents and she belonged to Hindu religion by birth. She belonged to open category. Initially, her name was Parvathi. Being influenced by the Muslim faith, she embraced Islam and converted herself to Muslim religion on 26.03.2004. On the date of conversion into Muslim religion, she had executed a sworn affidavit to that effect. One Tippu Sultan, Jamiya Mosque of Namakkal had certified her conversion into Muslim religion. After her conversion into Muslim religion, she married one Shahul Hameed, a Muslim by birth. On 26.7.2006, her change of religion and her name was also published in the Government gazette. She had also obtained a community certificate from the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar stating that the petitioner Ruhaiyah Begam, wife of Shahul Hameed belongs to Muslim-Thakkani (converted Islam).
3. The petitioner on seeking an advertisement issued by the TNPSC, dated 02.05.2012 had applied for the post under the Combined Subordinate Services. She also wrote the written examination. On being successful, she was found eligible for recruitment to the post of Station Officer, Fire and Rescue services. She was also called for Physical Efficiency Test conducted on 22.11.2012. She had participated in the same. She was included in the provisional list of candidates called for oral test on 09.01.2013. Subsequently, she had attended the oral test and produced the original certificates for verification and that she was waiting for an appointment order. When the results were published in the official website of the TNPSC on 29.01.2013, her name was not in the list of selected candidates. On going through her certificates, she was informed that she is a converted Muslim from the Hindu religion and she originally belonged to Forward Class. She cannot be given the privilege of Backward class (Muslim) by way of such conversion and that she will be treated as belonging to other category.
4. The contention of the petitioner was that she had produced the community certificate dated 27.7.2007 from the competent authority. Therefore, she is entitled to be considered as Backward Class (Muslim) for the purpose of selection.
5. When the matter came up on 06.02.2013, this court directed Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned Standing counsel to get instruction from the respondents. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned counsel taking notice for the TNPSC.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.9150 and 10859 of 2012, dated 10.01.2013, wherein in paragraphs 6 to 8, it was observed as follows:
"6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Service Commission that though there are Government Orders conferring the benefit of the community status upon persons who get converted to Christianity, there are no similar orders in respect of Islam and that therefore, as per the Government Orders, the petitioner has to be treated only under the category of 'others'. But, the stand taken by the Service Commission is untenable for two reasons, a)Conversion of a person from one religious faith to another is a fundamental right and b) that if a person has genuinely converted himself from one faith to another, he cannot be deprived of the benefit that would go along with such conversion, unless the conversion itself is suspected to be a smoke