A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice V.M. Velumani and Justice R. Hemalatha dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner prayed for quashing the order of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee which dismissed the petitioner’s employment claiming that he faked his caste and misused the reservation policy to obtain the employment years back. The judges remarked that no matter how late the truth resurfaces, it will have an effect on such petitioners who exploit or misuse the reservation policy and time cannot be used as a justification for the same.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner R. Balasundaram was in possession of a Community Certificate issued by a Tahsildar certifying him as belonging to 'Hindu Konda Reddy' a Scheduled Tribe Community. Based on this certificate he was appointed as ‘Khalasi’ under the quota of Scheduled Tribe in the Institute of Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding, Coimbatore on 15.10.1982. Subsequently, he was promoted to the cadre of Lower Division Clerk on 03.12.1999 and later became Upper Division Clerk on 09.09.2020. He attained his superannuation on 30.11.2021 and was being paid only the provisional pension. On 30.09.2014, while he was in service his employer, the third respondent, referred his community certificate to the first respondent committee which initiated proceedings referring the matter to Vigilance Cell in the year 2018. The Vigilance Cell made an enquiry and submitted a report dated 02.05.2018 stating that the petitioner does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe Community and the same was accepted by the first respondent committee which cancelled the Original Community Certificate dated 11.02.1980 issued by the Tahsildar. Hence, this Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order of the first respondent committee.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner summitted that he impugned order prima facie was in total violation of the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Additional Commissioner reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241. According to the counsel, the first respondent committee did not disclose any valid reason for cancelling the petitioner's community certificate that too after four decades since the date of issuance of the original certificate. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that the Guidelines of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India were categorical that such verification of Scheduled Tribe community certificates was to be done only for those who had obtained employment under the quota for Scheduled Tribe category during or after 1995 and therefore, the impugned proceedings have no legal sanctity. It was also pointed out that the inordinate delay of about 40 years without going into the antecedents of the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It was further contended that the Tahsildar, Avinashi in his reply dated 03.04.2018 to the Vigilance Cell had mentioned that the records of the year 1980 pertaining to Community Certificate were not traceable and penalising the petitioner for not preserving the old records is unjustifiable. Further, it was argued that the constitution of the first respondent committee itself was not in accordance with the guidelines set out in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Additional Commissioner reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241. It was contended that the second member of the said committee was not in a competent position to be a member.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents contended that due care was taken while verifying the petitioner's community and it was only after making thorough enquiries, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights Wing, SC/ST Vigilance Cell, Coimbatore District submitted an enquiry report which was again presented to the petitioner on 14.02.2021 and his deposition on the same was also obtained before the first respondent committee and the first respondent committee concluded the community status of the petitioner. It was also contended by him that the first respondent committee had followed proper procedure and no bias or illegality can be alleged against the committee since the facts and circumstances of each case is different and any decision taken by the committee is totally based on such facts and circumstances. According to the learned counsel, obtaining a bogus community certificate and getting a job based on the certificate is a serious offence because the constitution had provided for reservation for the marginalized section of the society and such instances of bogus certificate definitely deprives a genuine candidate of his opportunity for employment.
Observations of the Court:
The court remarked that careful scrutiny of the vigilance report revealed and posed a very tricky question as to how the brother and daughter of the petitioner can belong to a different community i.e., Reddy community (Ganjam) while the petitioner alone belongs to Konda Reddy community. It was observed that the sister of the petitioner belonged to Handi community. Such discrepancies were glaring and went against the claim of the petitioner. As per the court, the petitioner's contention that more than four decades has elapsed and therefore, the impugned order becomes time barred did not carry much conviction. This was because the reservation policy as such is considered a matter of pride for our country’s diversity and any exploitation or misuse even if detected late cannot be a justification for such misuse. The court held that it is true that there were no scientific methods to determine the caste or community of any citizen of India till a few decades back but now with the system in place covering all the aspects and facts to go into the genuineness of anyone's claim of belonging to SC/ST nothing much can be alleged against such committees which are intended only to weed out the unscrupulous elements who misuse the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, the court found no reason to sit in judgment or examine the full-fledged report of the Vigilance Committee and State Level Scrutiny Committee.
The decision of the Court:
The writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: R. Balasundaram vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and others
Coram: Justice V.M. Velumani and Justice R. Hemalatha
Case No.: W.P.No.13526 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.12723 & 12725 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. N. Naganathan
Advocate for the Respondent:
Mr. P. Gurunathan (For R1 and R2)
Mr. M.T. Arunan (For R3)
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments