@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the Respondents to include her name in the list of Scheduled Tribe Candidate for the post of Physical Education Teacher and for a consequential direction to the second Respondent Teacher Recruitment Board (TRB) to appoint her under the quota meant for the Scheduled Tribe Community.
2. When the writ petition came up on 24.09.2009, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to take notice. Subsequently, it was admitted on 19.10.2009. Pending the writ petition, the Petitioner''s prayer for interim direction to reserve one post and for a direction to include her name in the eligible list of Scheduled Tribe candidate were dismissed by this Court on 19.10.2009.
3. On notice from this Court, the Respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 09.12.2010.
4. The case of the Petitioner was that she had acquired the qualification of Bachelor Degree in Physical Education and Sports Science (BPES) in May 2003. She got herself registered with the Employment Exchange on 31.07.2003 for the purpose of being considered for the post of Physical Education Teacher. She claimed that she belong to Konda Reddy Community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe Community under the Presidential order. She also obtained a community certificate from the Tahsildar, Mettur on 25.04.1987 and in all her school records, her community was shown as Konda Reddy, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. On 17.09.2009, the first respondent had issued a statement which was also published in the Dinakaran Daily Newspaper stating that the seniority list for the selection of Physical Education Teacher had been released by the Teacher Recruitment Board on the basis of the Employment Registration Seniority applicable to the communities. As per the said statement, the Scheduled Tribe Candidates who got registered their names up to 09.09.2009 are eligible to be included, whereas the name of the petitioner was not included and therefore, because of the negligence of the Respondents, she lost her opportunity of getting employed under the State.
5. In answer to the allegations made, the first Respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 09.12.2010. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that as per the office records, she has been registered under the Forward Community. As per G.O. Ms. No. 1201, Social Welfare Department, dated 31.05.1985, the Government has stipulated that it is only the Revenue Divisional Officer shall issue Community Certificate in respect of persons belonging to Konda Reddy Community for the purpose of appointment to the State Government and Public Sector Undertaking. Since the Petitioner has not produced community certificate from the approved authority, her claim that she should be considered under the Scheduled Tribe Community cannot be considered. As the Petitioner has been considered under the open competition category for which names are considered only up to 24.08.2000, her name was not considered.
6. Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since she is having valid certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur showing her community as Konda Reddy and the certificate having been obtained as early as 25.04.1987, the said certificate is valid in the eye of law. In this context, he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Para 4 of the GOMs No. 2137 dated 11-11-1989 reads thus:
The Government directs that the Community Certificates in respect of all communities included in the list of Scheduled Tribes, for the purpose of appointments in public services under the Central and State Governments, Public Sector Undertakings, quasi-Government institutions, Banks etc., shall hereafter, be issued only by the Revenue Divisional Officers.
5. On a doubt being raised regarding the validity of certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11-11-1989, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 3-4-1991 informed the Collectors of various districts in Tamil Nadu that "the permanent Community Certificate issued to Scheduled Tribes by Tehsildars up to 11- 11-1989 is valid". This communication had been placed on record in the High Court. From a combined reading of GOMs No. 2137 dated 11-11-1989 and letter of the Joint Secretary dated 3-4-1991, (supra) it follows that whereas a Community Certificate after 11-11-1989 is required to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, but the Community Certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11-11- 1989 are valid certificates. In view of this position, it was not proper for the Respondent to have insisted upon a fresh certificate to be produced by the Appellant from the Revenue Divisional Officer as admittedly the Community Certificate produced by the Appellant had been issued by the Tehsildar concerned in 1987, that is, prior to 11-11-1989.
6. In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tehsildar prior to 11-111989 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all purposes so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Therefore, he contended that the stand of the Respondents was illegal and appropriate direction should be given.
7. However, this Court do not think that the respondents have committed any illegality in not accepting the claim of the Petitioner. In fact, the learned Judges who delivered the said judgment had no occasion to consider the directions issued by the Supreme Court in
8. Whether those directives are binding in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution or mere guidelines was also considered by a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M. Indian Bank v. R. Rani reported in (2007) 12 SCC 796. In paragraphs 5 to 7, it was observed as follows:
5. We first proceed to consider the question as to whether the directions contained in the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil1 was merely guidelines or law laid down by this Court. In Madhuri Patil1 after due consideration the Court gave various directions. Direction 4 in SCC para 13 at p. 254 read thus:
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
6. According to aforesaid Direction 4, the committee for verifying the caste certificate shall be constituted of three persons viz. (I) an Administrative Officer, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes, an officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of social status certificates and in the case of Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. Subsequently, for recall of the aforesaid judgment a petition was filed before this Court which was disposed of in Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development2 and no change was made in the constitution of the committee.
7. The directions given in Madhuri Patil1 have been reiterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. v. Laveti Giri3 in which while reiterating it was observed that the Government of India should have the matter examined in greater detail and bring about a uniform legislation in relation to these matters. In Baswant v. State of Maharashtra4 this Court held that the constitution of the committee was not in accordance with the decision rendered by this Court in Madhuri Patil1 as such the appeal was allowed and it was directed to constitute the committee in terms of the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil1 and decide the matter afresh. The said directions of this Court in Madhuri Patil1 regarding constitution of committee have been approved by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra5 in which as the matter was not referred to appropriate committee in terms of directions given in Madhuri Patil1 the appeal was allowed and it was directed that the properly constituted committee shall decide the matter. In view of the foregoing discussions it cannot be said that the directions given in Madhuri Patil1 were simply guidelines. In our view, the law laid down in Madhuri Patil1 has been reiterated times without number not only by two-Judge Benches but even by a three Judge Bench of this Court.
9. Therefore, merely because the Petitioner has produced the certificate from the Tahsildar does not immune her from scrutinizing by the authorities before accepting her claim as a Scheduled Tribe. Very recently, a Full Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep. By its Secretary v. R. Manikandan and others reported in 2011 (5) CTC 1 dealt with the candidate, whose name was not in the provisionally select list and who claimed to be a scheduled Tribe. The Full Bench in paragraph 27 gave the following directions:
27. In that view of the matter and for the reasons discussed, we answer the reference in the following manner:
A) The scrutiny of the genuineness of the Scheduled Caste certificates can be made only by District Level Vigilance Committee constituted by the State Government in terms of G.O. (2D) No. 108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.09.2007;
B) The scrutiny of the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe certificates can be made only by State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government in terms of G.O. (2D) No. 108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.09.2007;
C) Such scrutiny of certificates, be it Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, cannot be made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission;
D) For the purpose of processing the application and allowing a candidate to take part in the written examination and the consequential oral examination, the Service Commission would be entitled to verify as to whether the Candidate has produced a Caste Verification Certificate obtained from the respective Committees and in the event such certificate is produced, the selection of the candidate cannot be withheld and the name should be forwarded to the appointing authority for making appointments;
E) In the event a candidate does not produce such a Caste Verification Certificate and in the event he is selected, his name cannot be withheld and can be forwarded for appointment with a clear indication that the selection is subject to the verification of the community certificate;
F) In terms of paragraphs 10 and 15 of the directions of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case, which we have extracted, a candidate who is selected and appointed subject to verification of the community certificate, shall not claim any benefit of such selection and in case if the certificate is found to be false, the candidate should consequently lose his employment.
With the above directions, we answer the issue referred before us.
10. In the present case, the Petitioner has not gone into any selection process and her claim is yet to be accepted as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Therefore, it is open to the first Respondent to refer the community certificate for scrutiny regarding the genuineness by the State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government in terms of G.O. (2D) No. 108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.09.2007. Based on the report of the said Committee, the request of the Petitioner can be considered.
11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.
