In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 19.09.2008 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J AND The Honourable Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J Writ Petition No.21858 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.Nos.30223 and 30224 of 2002 N.Poorna Prakash ... Petitioner Versus 1. Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. District Level Vigilance Committee, rep. by its Chairman and District Collector, Salem, Salem District. 3. Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Chennai-25. 4. Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-10. 5. Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem-30. ... Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second Respondent in his Proceedings R.Dis.28326/96(D10) dated -12-2000 as confirmed by the first respondent in his Proceedings No.3270/Athi Na.2/2001 dated 29-4-2002 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner .. Mr.C.Selvlaraj, S.C. For Respondents.. Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P. for R1,R2 and R4 Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi for R3. No appearance for R5. (ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J) The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which confirmed the cancellation of his Community Certificate by the District Level Vigilance Committee, Salem. 2. According to the petitioner, his ancestors belonged to Hindu Adi Dravida Community, but his father switched over to Christianity and then reverted back to Hinduism in some time and the petitioner was also converted to Hinduism. Therefore, according to him he is entitled to the benefits as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. When he joined M.B.B.S Course in 1995, he was asked to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer to establish his community as Hindu Adi Dravida. Subsequently, the second Respondent passed an order in R.Dis.27325/96(D.10) dated -12-2000, cancelling his Community Certificate. His writ petition was disposed of directing him to exhaust the appeal remedy by filing an appeal to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the appellate authority. The appellate authority also confirmed the said order of cancellation of Community Certificate and therefore, he filed this writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the third Respondent. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the original order of cancellation by the District Level Vigilance Committee was illegal since the said Committee consist of only two members, which was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl.Commr., Tribal Development, Thane and Others AIR 1995 SC 94 and thereby the defect could not have been cured by taking the matter in appeal to the State Level Committee. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2008)1 MLJ 125 (SC) (G.M., Indian Bank v. R.Rani and another) wherein it has been held as follows:- "So far as the second submission is concerned, we are of the view that as the constitution of the District Level Committee was in infraction of law laid down by this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl.Commr., Tribal Development, Thane and Others (supra), the defect could not have been cured by taking the matter in appeal to the State Level Committee. This being the position, we are of the view that the High Court was quite justified in quashing the orders passed by District Level Committee, State Level Committee and the orders of termination." 5. The learned senior counsel also referred to (2008) 6 MLJ 807 (K.Gurusamy v. Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and Others) Wherein this Court relying upon (2008) 1 MLJ 125 SC (referred to supra) held as follows: "RATIO DECIDENDI" "As contemplated by the Supreme Court, the District Level Committee to consider the question of validity or otherwise of the community certificate of a person allegedly belonging to Scheduled Tribe should consist of three members. As such, when the community certificate of a person was cancelled by the District Level Committee consisting of two members, though it was subsequently affirmed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee consisting of three members, the order passed by the District Level Committee cancelling the community certificate cannot be considered as valid and could not be upheld." 6. The learned Special Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner were prior to G.O.(2D).No.108 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-I) Department, dated 12.9.2007 was issued and G.O.(2D).No.108 settles all those controversies. According to paragraph 3 of the said G.O. the orders passed by either of the committees related to Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste will be final and reviewable only under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that while issuing G.O.(2D).No.108 the State was conscious of the fact that several orders had been passed by the committees which were the appropriate committees at the relevant point of time and therefore, only to deal with such situations the Government had given the directions in para 3. Therefore, the order passed by the three members-State Level Committee is final and amenable to review only under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore the matter need not be remitted back to the District Level Vigilance Committee. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that in (2008) 1 MLJ 125 SC the Supreme Court did not actually deal with G.O. (2D).No.108 and that the introduction of G.O.(2D).No.108 changes the picture entirely. He also submitted that the said G.O. is in force. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. We have considered carefully the G.O.(2D).No.108 itself which now deals with the issuance of community certificate. In (2008)1 MLJ 125 SC the respondent claimed the status of Konda Reddy. The District Level Committee which had examined her case, was not constituted as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patel's case and therefore it was held that when the constitution of the District Level Committee was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maduri Patel's case, that defect cannot be cured by taking the matter in appeal to the State Level Committee and therefore they quashed the order of the District Level Committee and also State Level Committee which had exercised appellate jurisdiction. 9. In (2008)6 MLJ 807 the Division Bench had referred to G.O. (2D).No.108 . In that case, as in this case, the District Level two member Committee cancelled the community certificate and the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the State Level Committee consisting of three members by an order dated 4.3.2002, the Division Bench referred the issuance of G.O.(2D).No.108 and thereafter remitted the matter to the appropriate committee as constituted by the said G.O. 10. Since the learned Special Government Pleader referred to paragraph 3 of the said G.O.(2D).No.108, we extract the same herein: "The decision taken by the District Level Vigilance Committee re-constituted in Government Order (Ms)No.111, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Dated 67.2005 for verification of the genuineness of Community Certificate issued as Scheduled Tribes is final for the cases which were remitted to the three member District Level Vigilance Committee by the State Level Scrutiny Committee as per Court direction upto the date of issue of this order. The individuals who have already appealed to the State Level Scrutiny Committee against the orders passed by the reconstituted 3 member District Level Vigilance Committee in G.O.(Ms)No.111, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, dated 6.7.2005, in case of the certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar/Tahsildar be directed to initiate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, Madras. The appeal petitions already received by the State Level Scrutiny Committee against the orders passed by the two member District Level Vigilance Committee and which were not remitted back to the reconstituted three member District Level Vigilance Committee by the Government as the cases are challenged before the court and thereby pending before the State Level Scrutiny Committee be enquired only by the State Level Scrutiny Committee irrespective of the certificates issued as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes. In respect of cases pending before the Court and not remitted to the State Level Scrutiny https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Committee, the outcome of such cases have to be awaited." 11. So the para deals with 3 situations. The first is with regard to Scheduled Tribes. If by a Court Order the State Level Committee had remitted the case for verification of genuineness of the community certificate to a three member District Level Vigilance Committee then notwithstanding the fact as per G.O.(2D).No.108 the Scheduled Tribes certificate shall only be scrutinised by the State Level Committee, any order passed by the three member District Level Vigilance Committee upto the date of G.O (2D) No.108 would be final and therefore the only remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The next situation is with regard to those persons who had appealed against the order of the re-constituted three member District Level Vigilance Committee on the understanding that appeal remedy was provided. G.O.(2D).No.108 has taken away this appeal remedy. Now, those persons who had appealed to the State Level Committee have been directed to initiate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To clarify again, any person who was aggrieved by the order passed by the three member District Level Vigilance Committee and had appealed to the Three member State Level Scrutiny Committee shall notwithstanding the filing of the appeal move this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 13. The third situation relates to such appeals which had already been received by State Level Committee against the orders passed by the two member District Level Committee (which has since been held to be illegal) and had not been remitted back to the reconstituted three member committee and continue to be with the State Level Committee since such cases were pending before the Court. These cases shall be decided by the State Level Scrutiny Committee whether they relate to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. 14. The last case is with regard to the cases pending before the Court and not remitted to the State Level Committee. This shall await the outcome of the Court Order. 15. Now, the present case, is a case of person who was aggrieved by order of cancellation of Community Certificate by the two member District Level Committee and who had filed an appeal before the State Level three member committee which had also passed an order confirming the order of the two member District Level Committee. Therefore no matter was pending either before the District Level Committee or before the State Level Committee, then on the date of G.O.(2D) No.108. This case does not fall in with any of the above situations. On the other hand, (2008) 1 MLJ 125 SC and (2008) 6 MLJ (cited spra) apply exactly to the facts of the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case. Therefore, following the said ratio the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the three member District Level Committee to pass an order afresh in accordance with law and independently without being influenced by any of the observations of this Court or the findings of the two member District Level Committee or of the three member State Level Committee. The said exercise will be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.30223 and 30224 of 2002 are closed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gr. To 1. Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Chairman, District Level Vigilance Committee and District Collector, Salem, Salem District. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai-25. 4. Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-10. 5. Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem-30 6.The Chairman, Three Members District Level Committee, Chennai. +1 cc To Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.53775 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.53676 W.P.No.21858 of 2002 ck [co] gkg/30.9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/