Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12045
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 07.12.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 29.02.2024 CORAM:
THE HON-BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON-BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A.No.526 of 2020 and W.P..No.18677 of 2020 and WMP.No.23191 of 2020 W.A. No.526 of 2020 Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, 8 Mayor Sathyamurthy Road, Chetpet, Chennai 31.
Rep by General Manager [TN] .... Appellant vs.
1.H.Krishnarajan 2.The Chairman of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare [CV2]
Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. ... Respondents (R2 suo~motu impleaded as per order dated 06.01.2020 made in W.P. No.27015/2019 by NAVJ) W.P. No.18677 of 2020 Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, 8 Mayor Sathyamurthy Road, Chetpet, Chennai 31.
Rep by General Manager [TN] .... Appellant vs.
1.The Chairman of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare [CV2]
Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.H.Krishnarajan 3.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai. 4.The Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. ... Respondents (R3, R4 suo~motu impleaded vide order dated 07.04.2021 made in WP.18677/2020 by NKKJ, TVTSJ) PRAYER in W.A.No.526 of 2020: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in WP.No.27015 of 2019 dated 06.01.2020. Prayer in W.P.No.18677 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the first respondent vide proceedings No.5642/CV~6/2014~12 dated 24.08.2020 and to quash the same, and consequently, direct the first respondent to reinvestigate the community status of the second respondent in the light of the earlier proceedings of the first respondent No.28168/ADWII/2015 dated 31.8.2006 in the case of H.Rani, sister of the second respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Hon-ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. For Appellant : Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Standing counsel (in both the petitions) For R1 : Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate in W.A.No.526 of 2020 and second respondent in W.P.18677 of 2020 For R2 : Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar, Special Government Pleader for R2 in WA.No.526 of 2020 and first respondent in WP.18677/2020
Employer's standing as an aggrieved party in challenging community certificate decisions.
Headnote:
Community Certificate - Employment Dispute - The court upheld the community certificate submitted by the employee, leading to reinstatement. The employer challenged the decision, seeking re-verification of the community status of the employee's sibling. The court found the employer to be an aggrieved party and maintained the writ petition. The State Level Scrutiny Committee was directed to re-verify the genuineness of the community certificates and conclude the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Appeal challenged the reinstatement of an employee based on the upheld community certificate. The Writ Petition was filed by the employer seeking re-verification of the community status of the employee's sibling. The State Level Scrutiny Committee confirmed the employee's community certificate as genuine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the employer to be an aggrieved party and maintained the writ petition. The State Level Scrutiny Committee was directed to re-verify the genuineness of the community certificates and conclude the proceedings.
Issues: Employment dispute based on community certificate genuineness and reinstatement of the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The employer was considered an aggrieved party and allowed to maintain the writ petition. The State Level Scrutiny Committee was directed to re-verify the genuineness of the community certificates and conclude the proceedings.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, confirming the reinstatement of the employee. The employer was directed to reinstate the employee, and the State Level Scrutiny Committee was directed to re-verify the genuineness of the community certificates and conclude the proceedings.
JUDGMENT
(Order was delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J)
As the issues involved in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions are interconnected, by consent both are taken up for hearing jointly and disposed of with a common order. The Writ Appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 06.01.2020 in W.P. No.27015 of 2019, whereby the impugned order of termination from service passed by the appellant as against the 1st respondent was quashed and the appellant was directed to reinstate him into service with all attendant benefits. The writ petition has been filed by Petitioner/Employer challenging the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 24.08.2020 and to re- investigate the community status of the second respondent/Employee in the light of the earlier order of the first respondent dated 31.08.2006, in the case of H.Rani who is the sister of the second respondent.
W.A. No.526 of 2020:
The sister of the 1st respondent Tmt.Uma Maheswari, got appointed as a sweeper under the Scheduled Tribe quota in the appellant corporation as AG.III (General) (Assistant Cadre) and while in service she died in harness in the year 1992. The first respondent herein as a dependent was given compassionate appointment on 28.10.1994. The first respondent had submitted two community certificates dated 28.06.1975 issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam and another community dated 09.09.1985 issued by The Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk certifying that the first respondent belongs to Hindu “Kattunayakan community” which is notified as Scheduled Tribe. The first respondent initially joined as AG.III (Technical) but as he did not complete B.Sc. Degree within the stipulated period from joining service, he was reverted to the post of watchman on 25.01.2006 and pursuant to the relaxation of the educational qualification by the orders of the Executive Director (Personnel), the first respondent was granted retrospective promotion from AG.II Technical to A.G.I Technical and Manager Technical, but however the order was put on hold considering the verification of community certificate.
3. Even at the time of the death of Uma Maheswari, the community certificate submitted by her was pending verification but the same was not concluded due to her demise. Further, one H.Rani, who is the other sister of the first respondent who was also working in the appellant corporation, appointed under the ST quota has been dismissed from service by order dated 15.09.2006 for having secured employment by producing bogus community certificate. The dismissal order was challenged by H.Rani in W.P. No.11042 of 2008, which came to be dismissed by the order of this Court on 18.11.2008.
4. As the community certificate of the petitioner's own sister H.Rani was found to be bogus and that it was found that she did not belong to Hindu Kattunayakan Community which is notified as the Scheduled Tribe, but she belong to Hindu Kuravar Community, the community certificate submitted by the first respondent was also subjected to verification and the same was referred to District Collector, Villupuram for verification of genuineness which was subsequently referred to Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Community/the second respondent. At this juncture, the first respondent filed W.P. No.33721 of 2017 seeking to restrain the authorities from scrutinizing the community status. The Writ Petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on
19.02.2019. This action of the first respondent further strengthened the doubts of the appellant to infer that the community certificate produced by the petitioner / appellant may not be genuine in view of the community certificate submitted by her sister H.Rani having found to be bogus and therefore, in such circumstances, the appellant immediately by an order dated 26.08.2019, canceled the appointment of the first respondent and removed him from service.
5. Challenging the order of the removal from service dated
26.08.2019, the first respondent filed W.P. No.27
