Prior final judicial decrees on community status bind Scrutiny Committee; executive cannot override via later cancellation.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the first respondent cancelling the writ petitioner’s community certificate on the ground that it is not genuine. The stand of the petitioner is that he belongs to Hindu Kattunayakan community which is a notified Scheduled Tribe.

2. The writ petitioner’s father, R.Subban, was issued with a community certificate by the competent authority as early as on 07.11.1967 certifying that he belonged to Hindu Kattunayakan community. The petitioner’s father’s certificate was never cancelled and continued to hold good till his demise. In the year 1989, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a G.O. stating that with effect from 01.11.1989, it is only the Revenue Divisional Officer who is competent to issue community certificates with regard to Scheduled Tribes. By then, the petitioner had joined UCO bank as a sub-staff on 30.11.1982. The petitioner had gained employment on the strength of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Paramakudi on 01.02.1980. Since the bank insisted that he should get the community certificate in the revised format, the petitioner approached the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer. The jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer did not grant the certificate sought for by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed O.S No.63 of 1991 on the file of Sub Judge, Ramanathapuram seeking mandatory injunction to the Revenue Divisional Officer for issuing community certificate in the revised format. The suit was decreed as prayed for on 19.04.1994. Along with the petitioner, his sister had also filed O.S.No.60 of 1991 and that was also decreed by a common judgment.

3. Challenging these two judgments and decrees, A.S.Nos.73 and 74 of 1995 were filed before the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram by the Government. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court on 29.11.1996. Challenging the same, S.A.Nos.993 and 994 of 1998 were filed. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeals by judgment and decree dated 28.04.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Tamil Nadu filed SLP (Civil) Nos. 8349-8350/2004. The SLPs were dismissed at the condone delay stage itself on 27.09.2004.

4. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was issued with a permanent community certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi on 05.09.2008. The petitioner’s employer, however, took up the matter before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Vide order dated 02.08.2022, it was held that the writ petitioner does not belong to Hindu Kattunayakan community.

5. The question that calls for consideration is whether the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee deserves to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to quash the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the authorities submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned. He argued that this Court ought not to go by the certificates earlier issued in favour of the writ petitioner’s brother and sister. This was because pursuant to the G.O(Ms)No.106 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 15.10.2012, Vigilance Cell was formed and that in the case of the writ petitioner, the State Level Scrutiny Committee had the benefit of the report of the vigilance cell. In Paragraph 10 of the impugned order, the vigilance