The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the genuineness of a community certificate has been verified and affirmed, there cannot be a re-verification, and new material received after a significant period cannot be a ground for re-verification.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings in a letter No.13704/CV-2(2)/2017-6 dated 17.07.2019 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and further direct the first respondent to complete the enquiry into the Community status of the third respondent within the reasonable time as may be stipulated by this Court.)

Common Order:

R. Subramanian, J.

1. These writ petitions are taken up together for disposal since the issues involved are one and the same.

2. In W.P(MD)No.5771 of 2023, the petitioner seeks for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from verifying the petitioner''s community certificate and consequently, directing the second respondent, employer to release the pension, gratuity, earned leave encashment and other retirement benefits. In W.P(MD)No.9979 of 2020, the employer challenges the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, dated 17.07.2019, in and by which, the Committee closed the enquiry.

3. The facts relating to these writ petitions are as follows:-

The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5771 of 2023, Mr.Karthikeyan joined the Life Insurance Corporation as Assistant in the year 1983 under the quota belonging to the Schedule Tribes based on a certificate dated 19.06.1982 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli. He was subsequently, promoted and appointed as a Development Officer with effect from 14.11.1985. Since there was certain doubt raised, about the genuineness of his community certificate, the matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by his communication dated 24.08.1990, upheld the validity of the certificate issued to the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5771 of 2023. Subsequently, there was another verification contemplated in the year 1997 and notice was issued to the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5771 of 2023 on 30.07.1997. This notice was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.12440 of 1997. This Court held that once certificate had been verified and found to be genuine, there cannot be a re-verification and the petitioner cannot be harassed by way of second enquiry. While doing so, this Court in paragraph 9 of the Judgment, has observed as follows:-

“9. All the above mentioned decisions clearly show that the appointing authority has right to verify the genuineness of the certificates by approaching the constituted authority and once the report is received holding that certificate is genuine, valid , thereafter, the certificate holder cannot be further harassed to prove his caste/community in any other manner. Accordingly, the present action of the second respondent calling upon the petitioners to appear for an enquiry regarding the genuineness of the community certificate obtained cannot be sustained.”

4. As a result of the above observation, the writ petition was allowed and the contemplated enquiry was aborted. It should be pointed out that the employer, namely, Life Insurance Corporation, was a party to the said writ petition, inasmuch as it was arrayed as third respondent. Thereafter, claiming that it has received certain complaints supported by certain documents, the Life Insurance Corporation sought for another reference of the certificate of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5771 of 2023. The said reference was closed vide order dated 17.07.2019. The said closure order is the subject matter of challenge in W.P(MD)No.9979 of 2020.

5. We have heard Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5771 of 2023 and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the employer, the second respondent in W.P(MD)No.5771 of 2023 and the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9979 of 2020.

6. While Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing heavy reliance on the Judgment of this Court in W.P(MD)No.12440 of 1997, would contend that the authority did n