In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Date : 19..03..2008 Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. MURUGESAN and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH Writ Petition Nos: 2656, 6446 and 35007 of 2007 W.P. No: 2656 of 2007 V. Krishnan Door No: 17/9, Ramasamy Garden St. Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. ... Petitioner -vs- 1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai, Collectorate, Chennai District. 2. The District Vigilance Committee rep. by Chairman and District Collector, Collectorate, Chennai District. ... Respondents W.P. No: 6446 of 2007 K. Jothishree Door No: 17/9, Ramasamy Garden St. Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Engineering Education Admission 2006, Anna University, Chennai – 600 025. 1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 25. 3. The Principal, St. Peter's Engineering College, Avadi, Chennai – 54. ... Respondents W.P. No: 35007 of 2007 K. Jothishree Door No: 17/9, Ramasamy Garden St. Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025. 2. The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025. 3. The Principal, St. Peter's Engineering College, Avadi, Chennai – 54. ... Respondents .. .. .. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus (i)To call for records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.Vu.1/53870/2006 dated 08.01.2007 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to issue Community Certificate to the daughter of the petitioner K.Jothishree that she belongs to Kurumans Community (Prayer in WP 2656/2007) (ii)Writ of Mandamus to approve the admission of the petitioner for the admission to B.E. (Information Technology) Course and permit the petitioner to write all examinations (Prayer in WP 6446/07) (iii) Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to issue hall ticket to the petitioner to writ all examintions for B.E.(Information Technology) and to publish all the results without insisting upon the production of the Community Certificate (Prayer in WP 35007/2007). 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner in all : Mr. S. Doraisamy, the three writ petitions For respondent : Mr. K. Balasubramani R1 & R2 in WP 2656/07 Addl. Govt. Pleader R1 in WP 35007/07 R2 in WP 6446/07 For R1 in WP 6446/07 and :Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal R2 in 35007/07 for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates C O M M O N O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by D.Murugesan) All the above three writ petitions relate to the issue of community certificate to one K. Jothishree, D/o. V. Krishnan. In W.P. No: 2656 of 2007, the father of the said K. Jothishree has approached this Court questioning the order of the Schedule Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai dated 08.01.2007. It appears that the petitioner had applied for issue of community certificate in favour of his daughter K. Jothishree certifying that she belong to Hindu Kuruman community which is notified to be a Schedule Tribe community. The said application was made on the basis of the community certificate issued in favour of the said V. Krishnan and his wife V. Jamunadevi, certifying that both of them belong to Kuruman community, a notified schedule tribe. However, by the impugned order dated 08.01.2007, his request was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfied as to the manner in which those certificates were obtained from the competent authority. 2. We have heard Mr. S. Doraisamy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the writ petitions and Mr.K.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Government Pleader. Prior to the issue of G.O. Ms. No: 2137 dated 11.11.1989, the Tahsildar had the jurisdiction over issuance of community certificate in respect of the schedule tribes. However by the said Government Order, the power to grant community certificate for the applicant seeking issue of community certificate namely Schedule Tribes vest with the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is the case of the petitioner namely V. Krishnan that he was issued with a community certificate by the 3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tahsildar, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, on 12.06.1981 certifying himself to belong to Hindu Kuruman community and equally the petitioner has also produced such certificate issued in favour of his wife by name V. Jamunadevi, issued by the same Tahsildar, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, on the same date. Based on the above certificates, the petitioner was employed and is presently working in United India Insurance Company Ltd. and his wife is also working in Railways. 3. The question as to whether those certificates can be considered to be valid came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in JT 1997 (7) S.C. 660 (R. Kandasamy vs. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust) wherein the Apex Court has held that the community certificate issued to a Schedule Tribe candidate by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all purpose so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. 4. In fact, this Court in a number of cases has not only held that those certificates are valid and but also held that without cancelling such certificates, demanding fresh certificate be produced from the competent authority also is unsustainable. It is not the case of the respondent that the certificates issued in favour of V. Krishnan and his wife V. Jamunadevi have been cancelled in a manner known to law and as a necessary corolary those certificates are invalid and hence, on the strength of those two certificates, petitioner's application for issue of community certificate to his daughter cannot be considered. In those circumstances, the refusal of the respondent to rely upon those certificates solely on the ground that petitioner has not satisfied as to the manner in which those certificates were obtained from the competent authority cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the said finding is not supported by any material fact or document. It is only on a presumption. Under these circumstances, the order impugned in W.P. No: 2656 of 2007 refusing the grant of certificate in favour of the daughter of the petitioner is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. That writ petition viz. W.P. No: 2656 of 2007 is allowed. 5. Though it is a general rule that this court shall not issue a positive direction to the authorities to grant a certificate and would normally direct the authorities to consider and pass in the light of the observations made in the order, the said rule has exception. When this court had found that the petitioner had been unjustly denied the issuance of the community certificate and in the event this court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the community certificate based on the materials placed, it would only be 4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ justified in issuing a positive direction to the authorities, directing them to issue the community certificate. 6. In fact, the power of the court to issue the positive directions has been recognized by the Supreme Court in "THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, GIAN PRAKASH, NEW DELHI & ANOTHER v. K.S.JAGANNATHAN & ANOTHER (AIR 1987 SC 537)", the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion." 7. In "AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST & ANOTHER v. STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS (AIR 1996 SC 1649)", the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical Council of India to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the 5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction." 8. In view of the above, the 1st respondent in writ petition No.2656 of 2007, The Schedule Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai, Chennai District, is directed to issue the certificate in favour of K. Jothishree, certifying herself to belong to Hindu Kuruman community. This direction shall be complied with within a period of two months from to-day. 9. The writ petition in W.P. No: 6446 has been filed by K. Jothishree, D/o. V. Krishnan, for issue of directions to the respondents to approve her admission to B.E. ( Information Technology) Course and permit her to write all the examinations. This writ petition came to be filed on the ground that though petitioner's father V. Krishnan and mother V. Jamunadevi were issued with a certificate dated 18.08.1991 by the Tahsildar, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, that they belong to Hindu Kurumun community, a notified Schedule Tribe, the application made by the petitioner before the competent authority was not considered and it was kept pending. In view of the above stated circumstance, she was compelled to approach this Court with the above prayer. The same petitioner had filed W.P. No: 35007 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent therein to issue hall ticket to the petitoner to write all examinations for B.E. (Information Technology) and to publish the results without insisting upon the production of the community certificate. This Court had granted the interim relief for attending the classes and taking up the examinations. In W.P. No: 2656 of 2007 filed by the father of K.Jothishree we have held that this petitioner is entitled for possession of a community certificate certifying that she belongs to Hindu Kuruman community, a notified schedule tribe and we have directed The Schedule Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai, Chennai District, to issue such a certificate 6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within a period of two months from today. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the claim of the writ petitioner in these two writ petitions. Accordingly these two writ petitions viz. W.P. Nos: 6446 and 35007 of 2007 are allowed as prayed for. All the connected miscellaneous petitions shall stand disposed of. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gp To 1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai, Collectorate, Chennai District. 2. The Chairman and District Collector, The District Vigilance Committee Collectorate, Chennai District. 3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Engineering Education Admission 2006, Anna University, Chennai – 600 025. 4. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 25. 7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025. +4ccs to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate Sr 15604,15605,15505,15506 +1cc to M/s. G.M.Mani Associates, Sr 15806 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 15833 KU (CO) km/3.4. W.P. Nos: 2656, 6446 and 35007 of 2007 8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/