ORDER

The petitioner as well as his family members were Hindus. They belonged to Most Backward Class (DNC). They got converted to Islam on 26.05.2008. The petitioner changed his name. It was also notified in the gazette. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram Taluk issued community certificate dated 28.10.2015 certifying that the petitioner belongs to Labbais community. When TNPSC issued Notification No.15/2018 dated 10.08.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the posts included in Combined Civil Services Examination – II (Group-II Services), the petitioner applied in response thereto. He cleared the preliminary written examination held on 11.11.2018. He also wrote the main examination held on 23.02.2019. But he was not included in the final selection list. He invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act and came to know that the reason for his non-selection was because TNPSC did not treat him under “BC (Muslim)” category but considered him under “General” category. Questioning the said stand taken by TNPSC, the present writ petition has been filed.

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Article 25 of the Constitution of India recognizes freedom of conscience; one can profess any religion. One can get converted. The petitioner was only exercising his fundamental right when he converted to Islam. Before conversion, he enjoyed the status of belonging to MBC (DNC). In the State of Tamil Nadu, Muslims are recognized as belonging to Backward Class. The petitioner should therefore be considered as belonging to BC community. The jurisdictional authority had certified that the petitioner belongs to Labbais. When similar issue arose before this Court, it had been repeatedly held that it is not open to the recruiting agency to question the contents of the community certificate when its genuineness is not in doubt. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :

“i) R.Ayesha v. The Government of Tamil Nadu (2015 SCC OnLine Mad 3572), ii) S.Sumaiya Parveen v. The Secretary, TNPSC (WP No.8500 of 2019), iii) The Teachers Recruitment Board rep.by its Member Secretary, DPI Campus, Chennai v. K.Barida Beevi (WA No.1852 of 2021)

iv)M.Fathima Begam v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (WP (MD) No.17642 of 2015 and etc.,)

v)M.U.Aariffaa v. The Secretary to the Government, Chennai – 9

2014 (3) MLJ 476”

3.The learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that when similar issue was raised before the Hon'ble First Bench in WP(MD)No.1009 of 2013 (M.K.Muzibur Ragman vs. UOI and ors), it was closed as the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. They also pointed out that when a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court allowed a similar claim, the Government of Tamil Nadu filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which granted an interim order of status quo. The respondents pressed for dismissal of this writ petition.

4.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. I must clarify at the outset that it is not as if the Madras High Court has been consistently upholding the claim of those who converted to Islam to be treated as BC(Muslim). In S.Yasmine v. The Secretary, TNPSC reported in 2013 (4) CTC 53 rendered by His Lordship Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian (As His Lordship Then Was), it was held that TNPSC was right in treating a candidate who converted to Islam as belonging to the category of “other communities”. Interestingly, the Hon'ble Judge described his earlier decision rendered in W.P. Nos.9150 and 10859 of 2012 dated 10.1.2013 as not representing the correct position in law. Reliance was placed on Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi (1984) 2 SCC 91 and G.Michael v. S.Venkateswaran [1952 (1) MLJ 239]. In G.Michael, it was observed that a member of one of the castes or sub-castes when he is converted to