The State Level Scrutiny Committee should not insist on the aspect of limitation while entertaining the appeal and should dispose of the appeal within a specified time frame.

S. Manikumar, J.

The petitioner claims that he has been issued with a Community Certificate, by the Personal Assistant to the Collector (P.D.), Madurai, dated 28.02.1975, certifying that he belongs to "Kattunayakkan" Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. On the strength of the above said certificate, he got appointment in Southern Railways. The Employer of the petitioner sent the Community Certificate of the petitioner to the District Level Vigilance Committee, Madurai District, to verify its genuineness. Upon enquiry, the District Level Vigilance Committee (3 Members), Madurai District, vide its proceedings in Ni.MU.No.28582/02/Adhi8), dated 11.03.2006, held that the petitioner does not belong to "Kattunayakkan Community", as certified in the Community Certificate issued to him.

2. The said order of the District Level Vigilance Committee, Madurai District, dated 11.03.2006, was taken on appeal before the President, State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government (Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department), Chennai, on 17.05.2006.

In response to the appeal and referring to G.O.(2D) No. 108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-1) Department, dated 12.09.2007, the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, by Letter No.11001/CV.III/2006-6, dated 26.11.2007, has sent a reply to the petitioner stating that as per the Government Order stated supra, the State Level Scrutiny Committee has no power to sit on appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the District Level Vigilance Committee and so saying, the Secretary to Government Adhi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai, has advised the petitioner to seek for remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the letter. Pursuant to the same, the present writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the District Level Vigilance Committee, dated 11.03.2006.

3. While the matter is pending for a considerable period, Government have now issued G.O.Ms. No. 147 Revenue (RA-3(2) Department, dated 17.03.2016, providing an appeal against the order of the District Collector to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the order of the District Collector/District Level Vigilance Committee, as the case may be, can be challenged before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, by way of an appeal. Submission is placed on record. Mrs. Anusha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, accepts for such a course of action.

4. Placing on record the submissions of both the learned counsel for the parties, liberty is given to the petitioner, either to represent the appeal, dated 17.05.2006 or to file a fresh appeal to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Having regard to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed not to insist on the aspect of limitation while entertaining the appeal to be submitted by the petitioner or represented, within the time frame stipulated in this order. The State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to dispose of the appeal, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within two months from the date of filing of appeal.

5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.