@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.@mdashThe Petitioners in these writ petitions seek to challenge the orders of the Respondent dated 5.1.2010 (order dated 6.8.2010 in W.P. No. 24936 of 2010) passed in Na. Ka. No. 6184/2009(A1), Na. Ka. No. 6175/2009(A1) and Na. Ka. No. 2343/2010(A1) respectively, rejecting the applications of the respective Petitioners for issuance of community certificates to the Petitioner and his daughter by name Hemavathy (in W.P. No. 24814 of 2010); to the Petitioner (in W.P. No. 24815 of 2010); and to the Petitioner as well as his daughter R. Jayalakshmi and his son R. Rajkumar (in W.P. No. 24936 of 2010) to the effect that all of them belong to "Kurichchan" (ST) Community. Since the various grounds of attack of the Petitioners in all these three writ petitions are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The main grievance of the Petitioners is that while rejecting their claim for issuance of community certificates, adequate opportunity of hearing was not extended to them in order to prove their claim that they belong to "Kurichchan" (ST) Community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe Community. Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners, in support of their respective claim, produced various documents, which comprised of certificates issued in favour of their close relatives and that they also produced their school certificates and certain other documents, which were not properly considered by the Respondent while rejecting their claim for issuance of the community certificates. The learned Counsel also contended that if the Petitioners had been given an opportunity of hearing, they would have been in a position to establish their claim that they really belonged to the Kurichchan Community. The learned Counsel, therefore, seeks for the quashing of the orders impugned in these writ petitions and a direction to the Respondent to give proper opportunity to the Petitioners before deciding their applications for issuance of the aforesaid community certificates. Learned Counsel further pointed out that one of the grounds on which the claim of the Petitioners was rejected was that the community certificate issued to one of the close relatives of the Petitioners was not allowed to be relied upon on the ground that the said certificate was issued by a Deputy Tahsildar, who was not competent to issue the same. According to the learned Counsel, upto 13.5.1985, the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar and independent Deputy Tahsildars were delegated with the powers to issue community certificates in respect of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, and the said power was withdrawn only under G.O. Ms. No. 517 (PL-M) Department, dated 14.5.1985. The learned Counsel submitted that the said position was also approved of by this Court in the decision reported in 2010 (3) C.T.C. 673 (C.V. Kalaivanan v. The Sub-Collector, Mettur Dam, Salem District). The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the rejection of the certificates issued in favour of one of the relatives of the Petitioners by a Deputy Tahsildar cannot be sustained.
3. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader contended that in the impugned orders, each and every contention raised by the Petitioners as well as the documents produced on their behalf was examined, and the Respondent, while rejecting the claim of the Petitioners for issuance of community certificates, gave adequate reasons for rejection thereof. The learned Special Government Pleader also contended that at no point of time, the Petitioners prayed for a hearing and therefore, they cannot now be heard to say that they were not given adequate opportunity. Learned Special Government Pleader would, therefore, contend that the impugned order issued by the Respondent herein does not call for any interference.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Special Government Pleader, since the issue relates to the community status of the Petitioners and since the Petitioners state that they will be able to establish the various supporting materials produced before the Respondent with adequate evidence, we feel that one more opportunity can be extended to the Petitioners so as to prove their community status. In fact, in order to enable the Respondent to deal with the claim of the Petitioners for issuance of the community certificates, we wish to state the following as regards certain documents which were produced before the Court, based on which the Petitioners seek for the issuance of the community certificates.
5. In Writ Petition No. 24814 of 2010, we find that the Petitioner has produced the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government High School, Rayakotta dated 23.3.1970 in favour of one Muni Narasan, S/o. Muni Ugran; a Community Certificate dated __2/1981 issued by the Tahsildar, Denkanikottai in favour of Thiru. N. Nagarajan, S/o. Nagappan of Thimjepalli Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District; a Community Certificate dated 24.5.1982 issued in favour of Thiru. N. Muniraj, S/o. Nagappan by the Special Tahsildar, Denkanikottai, Dharmapuri District; the proceedings of the District Vigilance Committee, Krishnagiri dated 31.5.2006 in respect of Thiru. N. Muniraj, S/o. Nagappan holding that he belonged to Kurichchan Community and that the said certificate already secured by him was a genuine one; similar such order dated 16.8.2006 issued in favour of one Thiru. R. Lingan, S/o. Ramalingappa of Thimjepalli Village; a consequential order dated 31.5.2007 issued in respect of the said Lingan; an order dated 31.5.2007 of the District Vigilance Committee, Krishnagiri District in favour of N. Nagarajan, S/o. Nagappan holding that the community certificate obtained by him was genuine; a Community Certificate dated 17.6.2007 issued in favour of one L. Baggiya lakshmi, D/o. Late D.V. Rudrappa by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur; a Transfer Certificate dated 15.4.2009 issued in favour of the Petitioner herein by the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Ullukurikkai, Krishnagiri District; an order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 29.7.2009 in respect of one Thiru. Sathiyarangan, S/o. Muthappan holding that his community certificate was genuine; the application of the Petitioner dated 9.11.2009 made to the Respondent herein seeking issuance of a community certificate in his favour as well as for his daughter, enclosing as many as 17 documents, including a chart showing the genealogy of the Petitioner.
6. When we consider the above documents, at the very outset, we find from the impugned orders that the Petitioners only produced xerox copies of various documents. It is not even the case of the Petitioners that the originals of the said documents were produced before the Respondent at a later stage for verification and comparison of the xerox copies and the originals. As far as xerox copies are concerned, the stand of the Respondent that he could not have acted based on mere production of xerox copies of the documents cannot be found fault with, because there is every likelihood of manipulations being made while making xerox copies of original documents. For instance, if we refer to the Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued in favour of Muni Narasan dated 23.3.1970 produced by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 24814 of 2010, we find that as against the column ''Religion'', it is stated as ''Hindu''; and as against the column ''Community'', nothing is stated; but as against the sub-column ''Most Backward Class or Convert to Christianity from Scheduled Caste'', it is written as ''Yes'', and just adjacent to that, it is merely mentioned within brackets as ''S.T.''. It is highly doubtful whether in the School Leaving Certificate, there was any reference at all to the community of the said individual, and it is only his community status, viz. ''S.T.'', i.e. Scheduled Tribe, which is found mentioned in the said certificate. It might be that in the original certificate, a different community might have been noted and in order to obtain a favourable community certificate, that particular portion might have been concealed while taking a xerox copy from the original. Therefore, unless the original of that Secondary School Leaving Certificate in respect of the said Muni Narasan is produced, the Respondent would not have been in a position to verify whether the said certificate correctly disclosed all the relevant particulars. We are only referring to one instance by which any one can manipulate with the original documents while making xerox copies thereof. For this reason, we make it clear that unless the originals of any or all the documents sought to be relied on by the Petitioners are placed before the Respondent to enable him to compare the xerox copies with such originals, the Respondent would be well justified in rejecting such documents from consideration.
7. Secondly, when we examine another Community Certificate issued in February, 1981 by the Tahsildar, Denkanikottai in favour of one Thiru. N.Nagarajan, S/o. Nagappan, we find that this was not even the xerox copy of the original certificate. This document was only an attested typed copy of the said community certificate said to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Denkanikottai. At the bottom of the said certificate, in the portion meant for the signature of the Tahsildar, it is merely typed as ''Sd/-'' meaning ''Signed''. We are afraid that such a document can be easily created by any one and therefore, unless the original community certificate itself is produced, no reliance can be placed upon such a document, which is stated to be an attested copy of the so called community certificate issued in favour of the said Nagarajan. In such cases also, the Respondent would be well justified in rejecting such a document from consideration.
8. As regards the Transfer Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner in W.P. No. 24514 of 2010, we find that the said certificate was issued by the Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, Ullukurikkai, Krishnagiri District dated 15.4.2009. The certificate states that the Petitioner studied in that school between 1993-1994 and 1996-1997 in Classes VI to IX. It is not known how a pupil who studied in a school between 1993 and 1997 did not have a certificate issued in the year in which he left the school by discontinuing his education and was issued with such a certificate only in the year 2009, i.e. after twelve long years of his leaving the school. Therefore, in order to rely on that certificate, the burden is heavily cast upon the Petitioner to prove that he did his education in that school and for that purpose, the Transfer Certificate cannot be straight away accepted unless the Petitioner is able to persuade the Headmaster of the said school to produce the original registers containing the name of the Petitioner at the relevant point of time and show that he actually did his education in Classes VI to IX between 1993-1994 to 1996-1997. If the Petitioner failed to establish the said fact, the said Transfer Certificate dated 15.4.2009 will be of no use to him.
9. As far as the orders of the District Vigilance Committee are concerned, we find that in the case of Thiru. N. Muniraj, S/o. Nagappan as well in the case of Thiru. R. Lingan, S/o. Ramalingappa, there is no reference to the date of the community certificates produced by the said individuals, the genuineness of which was stated to have been verified by the District Vigilance Committee, Krishnagiri. In such circumstances, merely because the District Vigilance Committee concluded that some certificates issued in favour of those individuals were genuine, the Respondent cannot be expected to rely upon such documents and give a finding that the Petitioners also belong to the very same community. This is apart from the fact that there was no acceptable legal evidence produced by the Petitioners to show that any of the persons, whose certificates were produced by the Petitioners in support of their claim that they were related to those persons and that whatever community to which they belonged, the same status should be accorded to the Petitioners also. In order to claim such a benefit based on those documents, in the foremost, the Petitioners should have established their relationship with those persons with acceptable legal evidence. A mere statement of those persons or their mere oral evidence before the Respondent by itself cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of their relationship with the Petitioners having been established. Therefore, unless the relationship of the Petitioners with those persons, whose certificates the Petitioners want to rely upon, is established before the Respondent with legally acceptable material evidence, the Respondent need not have to go by the ipse dixit of the statements of any individuals in order to recognise the community status of the Petitioners or their children. We, therefore, hold that the claim of the Petitioners that they produced the certificates of very many relatives whose community status has been recognised as ''Kurichchan'' Community by itself cannot be accepted upon mere production of xerox copies of such documents issued in respect of the said individuals.
10. Keeping the above factors in mind and with a view to give an opportunity to the Petitioners to establish their claim for issuance of community certificates to the effect that they belong to the ''Kurichchan'' (ST) Community, which has to be considered only by the Respondent, we are of the opinion that the claim of the Petitioners that they are entitled for a personal hearing in order to establish their community status is well founded. Therefore, while setting aside the orders impugned in these writ petitions, we remit the matter back to the Respondent for fresh consideration. The Respondent shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioners before passing final orders. It is open to the Petitioners to establish their community status by producing the relevant legally acceptable documents in support of their claim. The Respondent may carry out the above said exercise expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is closed.
