IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 23499 of 2000(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R. NAGAMONI, MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (PRESENTLY EMPLOYED AT PANDICHERRY BRANCH). BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OR WELFARE (SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES), SHASTRI BHAVAN, 4-WING, NEW DELHI. 5. SYNDICATE BANK, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR. SRI.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1TO3 SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R5 SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC FOR R4 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 23499/2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DST. 18-9-1976. EXT.P2 RELEVANT PAGES OF S.S.L.C. BOOK. EXT.P3 CERTIFICATE DT. 14-9-1977. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 6-1-1992. EXT.P5 COPIES OF CERTIFICATES. EXT.P6 RELEASE DEED DT. 9-12-1975. EXT.P6(a) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P6. EXT.P7 REPORT OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P8 JUDGMENT IN O.P.1719/92. EXT.P9 REPRESENTATION DT. 27-4-2000. EXT.P10 ORDER DT. 16-6-2000. EXT.P11 CHAPTER 12 OF BROCHURE. EXT.P12 COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DT. 11-10-1976. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE . EXT.P14 DO. DO. EXT.P15 CIRCULAR DT. 30-12-1981. EXT.P16 REPORT DT. 30-8-2000. EXT.P17 LIST OF SCHEDULED TRIBES. EXT.P18 LETTER OF R.D.O. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 23499 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a member of the Konda Reddy community, which is accepted as a scheduled tribe in Kerala State as per Presidential orders. The petitioner was issued with a community certificate as per Community Certificate No. G.7714/77 dated 14-9- 1977 certifying that she belonged to the Konda Reddy community, which is a scheduled tribe community, based on which community certificate, the petitioner obtained employment in the reservation category in the 5th respondent Bank. Subsequently, the Bank entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the caste certificate which was referred to the District Collector. The District Collector, by Ext. P4 order, cancelled the earlier certificate on the ground that the petitioner belongs to the community 'Reddy' which is a forward community and not Konda Reddy. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court and this Court by Ext. P18 order, directed fresh enquiry on the validity of the community certificate. Stated to be after conducting a fresh enquiry, by Ext. P10 order, the earlier order Ext. P4 was confirmed by the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P10. 2. According to the petitioner, as is evident from the documents of the respondents themselves, no enquiry worth the name has been conducted in the matter. In Ext. P6 release deed issued in 1975 itself, the petitioner's father has been described as belonging to the community Konda Reddy, which is a document registered in the native place of the petitioner's father in Tamil Nadu, from where petitioner's father had migrated to Kerala. In Tamil Nadu, Andhra and Kerala, Konda Reddy is accepted as scheduled tribe community as per the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 at least at the relevant time. Further, by Ext. P12 community certificate issued to O.P.. No. 23499/2000. -: 2 :- the petitioner's husband as early as on 11-10-1976, he has been certified to be belonging to Hindu Konda Reddy, which has been included in the list of scheduled tribes. These documents would show that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community, which is a scheduled tribe community. The petitioner further points out that from Ext. P7 enquiry report of the concerned Tasildar itself, it is abundantly clear that no enquiry worth the name has been conducted by the Tahsildar. In the same, it has been specifically stated that the relatives who belong to her own caste, did not come forward to give statement regarding the caste verification. The statements relied upon by the Tahsildar was that of people belonging to other castes. Their statements could not have been relied on for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the petitioner's community, is the contention raised, since what has to be ascertained is whether in the petitioner's community, she has been accepted as Konda Reddy. The petitioner, quoting Ext. P17 order, submits that as per the procedure prescribed therein, for the purpose of ascertaining community, enquiry has to be made with the community to which a particular person claim to belong. On the strength of the above arguments, the petitioner submits that Exts.P4 and P10 orders are unsustainable. 3. The learned Government Pleader would stoutly oppose the prayers of the petitioner. According to him, sufficient materials have been collected by the respondents to disprove the petitioner's claim that she belongs to Konda Reddy community. Therefore, no interference is called for in Exts.P4 and P10, is the contention of the Government Pleader. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Prima facie, I am inclined to agree with the contention of the petitioner that a proper enquiry as contemplated by law had not been conducted by the respondents in the matter. No explanation is also forthcoming as to why Ext. P6 and P12 documents relating to the O.P.. No. 23499/2000. -: 3 :- community status of the petitioner's father and husband could not be relied upon. 6. However, I am not inclined to go into the matter in detail in so far as even before passing Ext. P10 order, the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 had come into force. Section 30 of the said Act reads thus: “30. Transitional Provision – A community certificate issued by any authority competent to issue the same under the relevant rules or orders before the commencement of this Act, shall unless it is cancelled under the provisions of this Act, be valid and shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of this Act.” Since the community certificate issued to the petitioner which is sought to be cancelled is one issued prior to the commencement of the Act, I am of opinion that applying Section 30, the proceedings for cancellation could only have been under the abovesaid Act. Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P10 orders are quashed. The respondents would be free to conduct appropriate enquiry complying with the procedure prescribed in the abovesaid Act and take a fresh decision in accordance with law by the appropriate authority as provided in the Act itself. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/