IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.08.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI W.A.No.1843 OF 2001 N.V. Rengasamy .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Madras-25 2. The Principal Government College of Engineering, Salem 3. The Revenue Divisionial Officer Madurai 4. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by the Secretary to Government Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (AD) (I) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 ..Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.16857 of 1993 dated 26.7.2000. This writ petition presented to this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent herein in Pa.Mu. No.14762/92, dated 20.11.1993 and quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent to validate Community Certificate bearing No.1217724, dated 16.9.89 issued by the Tahildar Vadipatti to the petitioner on or a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For appellans .. Mr.R. Kannan for Mr.P.T.S.Narendra Vasan For respondents.. Mr.M. Dhandapani Spl.G.P JUDGMENT G.M. AKBAR ALI,J., The writ appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16857 of 1993 dismissing the writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to the concerned District Collector by way of an appeal against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The facts leading of filing of the writ petition by the appellant is to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Pa.Mu.No.14752/92 dated 20.1.1993, quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent to validate the community certificate bearing No.1217724 dated 16.9.89 issued by the Tahsildar Vadipatti to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Hindu Kattunaicken Community which is a recognised Scheduled Tribe as per Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act 1976. The particulars relating to his community has been entered into his S.S.L.C.Book, Transfer Certificate and in school records. The Tahsildar, Vadipatti had issued a Community Certificate dated 16.9.89 in the prescribed form. The petitioner passed Higher Secondary Examination in April 1992 securing 518/600. He was applied for B.E. Engineering Course and the 1st respondent provisionally selected the petitioner for admission and allotted him to Thanthai Periyar Government Institute of Technology, Vellore. The petitioner produced the Community Certificate before the Principal. However, the Principal made an endorsement dated 3.8.1992 stating that the Community Certificate has to be signed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, the petitioner was not admitted in the course. The petitioner applied to the 3rd respondent, on 6.8.1992 to validate the Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The Tashildar, Vadipatti submitted a report on 17.8.92 confirming the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Hindu Kattunaicken Scheduled Tribe Community. No order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the peittioner could not join the course during the year 1992-93. The petitioner once again applied for admission to the Engineering Course in the year 1993-94 and the Director of Technical Education provisionally selected and allotted in the Government College of Engineering, Salem, who is the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent declined to admit the petitioner and insisted for the Community Certifiacate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.15640 of 1993 and obtained an interim direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner and based on the direction, the petitioner joined the 1st year degree course in the 2nd respondent College. At the hearing of the writ petition, the 3rd respondent submitted that he had already passed orders rejecting the application for issuance of Community Certificate. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the 3rd respondent. Therefore the writ petition. The order of the 3rd respondent is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 20 of the Constitution of India. The Community Certificate dated 16.9.1989 was issued by the Tahsildar after proper enquriy. This has been issued prior to 11.11.1989 and the Government has already directed that there is no necessity to revalidate the Certificate issued prior to 11.11.1989. Therefore, the order of the third respondent is liable to be quashed and a direction has to be issued to revalidate the community certificate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The respondents did not file any counter. However, the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner has not exhausted the appeal remedy before invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Consitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to appraoch the concerned District Collector for an appeal against the order passed by the 3rd respondent, the Reveneue Divisional Officer. Against which, the present appeal is preferred on the ground that no appeal will lie against the order of rejection passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in issuing the Community Certificate and also on the ground that the matter in hand is squarely covered by a judgement reported 1997 3 LW 52 SN wherein the Apex Court has held that while certificate issued after 11.11.89 is required to be issued by the Revenue Divisionial Officer and the Certificate issued prior to 11.11.1989 by the Tashildar are valid certificates and it is not proper on the part of the authorities to have insisted upon fresh certifiacate from Revenue Divisionial Officer. 4. Heard Mr.R. Kannan for, Mr.P.T.S. Narendra Vasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Dhandapandi, learned Special Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no appeal against the order passed by the 3rd respondent to the District Collector. The learned Government Pleader also conceded that there is no appeal against the order passed by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the appeal is heard on merits. The learned counsel for the appellants would draw our attention to the report given by the Tahsildar, Vadipatti in which after due enquiry the Tashildar has recommended for issuance of a Certificate confirming the petitioner belong to Hindu Kattunaicken Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. The learned counsel pointed out the father of the petitioner one Vasantha Raju was also issued with Certificates and his school records would show that he belongs to Hindu Kattunaicken Community. The learned counsel pointed out that the 3rd respondent had called for the school records of the father of the petitioner and found that they are unacceptable. The learned counsel also pointed out that the 3rd respondent had called for the school records of one Radha Krishnan, the brother of the petitioner and found that those records are also unacceptable as there were some corrections in the record. The learned counsel submitted that the 3rd respondent ought to have passed orders based on the Tahsildar Certifiacate issued to the petitioners dated 18.9.1989 and ought not have relied on the records of the Education Department. The main contention of the appellant is that under G.O.Ms.No.2137 the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 need not be revalidated and only after 11.11.1989 the Revenue Divisional Officers are empowered to issue certificates. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner has approached the 3rd respondent for issuance of fresh Community Certificate by an application dated 6.8.92, the date on which the 3rd respondent is the competent authority to issue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Community Certificate for Scheduled Tribes. The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that the 3rd respondent had meticulously conducted a detailed enquiry, perused the records of the father and brother of the petitioner and also have examined four witnesses from the village of the petitioner and has found that neither the petitioner nor his father Vasantharaj belonged to Hindu Kattunaicken Community. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish his status as Scheduled Tribe and on the other hand the 3rd respondent had enquired into the matter and has rightly appreciated the evidence and had come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Kattunaicken Community but his father Vasantharaju belong to Kavara Naidu Community. The learned Special Government Pleader relied on AIR 1997 SC 935 (S. Nagarajan vs District Collector, Salem) , wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: " 7. Though in the ordinary course he would have calimed to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community to avail the benefit of reservation available under State service. The learned single Judge was right in concluding that the appellant's father having been in Government Service would not have omitted to claim his status as belonging to scheduled Tribe had he really been a member of Scheduled Tribe community (Konda Reddy). On the other hand, his father was Reddy which is a forward caste and that, therefore, the subsequent interpolation that he was Konda Reddy (Interpolation) is not genuine and an incorrect document was thus brought into existence to claim the status as Scheduled Tribe. It is obvious that the Constitution intended to give benefit of social and economic advancement and empowerment and social equality of status and dignity of person by providing reservation in services of the State and in education by operation of Articles 15,16 and 14 of the Constitution and that, therefore, only the persons who are members of Scheduled Tribes and Schedules Castes alone are entitled to the benefit. By interpolation of the documents, none can get a particular social status unless it is recognised as per the Presidential Notification/Order under Article 341 or 342 to avail of the benefit of reservation made in that behalf". 7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on 2001 1 LW 720 (Sova[ragasam K vs The Revenue Divisionial Officer, Thiruvannamalai) wherein it is held, "However, the fact remains that the State Government has accepted that actually a certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner, certifying that he belonged to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Scheduled Tribe Community and it was issued in C.A.No.4780 of 1999 by the Tahsildar, Chengam on 1.8.95. If that be so, then the Supreme Court judgment, cited supra would apply on all fours and therefore, the Principal could not have insisted upon the production of the original case certificate issued. At the most, the petitioner cold have been asked to obtain a certified copy of the said certificate but, instead of that, it seems that the principal insisted upon the production of the fresh community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was obviously beyond the powers of the Principal as per the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned ruling. In that view, there would be no point in going ahead with this appeal and the Writ petition itself will have to be allowed". 8. The learned counsel also relied on 1997 2 CTC 36 (R. Kandasamy vs The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust), wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: "6. In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tashildar prior to 11.11.1989 is good and a 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 Divisionial Officer". 9. We gave our anxious consideration and perused the materials on record. It is admitted that the petitioner was issued with Community Certificate dated 18.9.89 that he belonged to Hindu Kattunaicken Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. G.O.Ms.No.2137 dated 11.11.1989 reads as follows: "The Government directs that the Community Certificates in respect of all communities included in the list of Scheduled Tribes, for the purpose of appointment in public services under Central and State Governments, Public Sector Undertakings, quasi Government institutions, Banks etc., shall hereafter, be issued only by the Revenue Divisional Officers"... 10. It is not in dispute that the Government of Tamil Nadu on 3.4.1991 informed the Collectors of various Districts that "the permanent Community Certificate issued to Scheduled Tribes by Tahsildar upto 11.11.1989 is valid". However, when the petitioner was given provisional admission for the Academic Year 1992-93 in Thanthai Periyar Government Institute of Technology, Vellore, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was directed to produce the Community Certificate signed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, he had applied to the 3nd respondent on 6.8.92 to validate the Community Certificate issued by the Tashildar. He has not challenged the authority who insisted upon a Certificate to be produced by the appellant. The certificate issued by the Tashildar concerned dated 18.9.89 itself was valid. After 11.11.89 the authority to issue Community Certificate for Schedule Tribes is the 3nd respondent. The 3nd respondent had conducted a thorough enquiry and has found that the father of the appellant one Mr. Vasantharaj himself belongs to Gavara Naidu Community and the school records pertaining to the said Vasantharaj and another brother Radhakrishnan have been corrected and the independent witnesses would also state that the said Vasantaraj does not belong to Kattunaicken Community and thereby had rejected the claim of the appellant. 11. The 3nd respondent has not only relied on the school records of Vasantharaj and Radhakrishnan but also relied on the four witnesses who belong to the same village, who would state that Vasantharaj belong to Gavara Naidu Community. Particularly, one Pon Perumal Naidu S/o Pon Subbiah woluld state that Vasantharaj is closely related to him and they belong to Gavara Naidu Community. Therefore, the school records of either the appellant or his father are not relevant to decide the community of the appellant. 12. It is an established position of law that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consitution cannot be exercised as an appellant jurisdiction and it is not open to this Court to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion as long as it is shown that the fact finding authority has followed the provision of law correctly and appreciated the evidence in a reasonable manner. The court cannot interfere with the finding of the fact by the authority unless it is proved that (i) there was lack of jurisdiction (ii) violation of principles of natural justice (iii) the enquiry and the finding were perverse and unreasonable and vitiated by non consideration of evidence on record. 13. In the present case, the 3nd respondent was the competent authority to enquire and issue community certificates for Scheduled Tribes and he has done the enquiry in a proper manner and has considered the evidence on record properly. After due enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer found that petitioner and his father Vasantharaj belong to Gavara Naidu Community. The learned Single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the same and we find no reason warranting interference. 14. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Madras-25 2. The Principal Government College of Engineering, Salem 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai 4. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu rep by Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (AD) (I) Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.61343 Judgment in W.A.No.1843 of 2001 MBS (CO) RH (2.9.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/