1()

R. PALANIMUtf{U

RETURNING OFFICER

February 23, 1984

Section JOO (l) (c)-ReserVed constituency-Canflidate giving false certifica1e as belonging to scheduled tribe-Election held void.

• In his election petition the appellant: contended that th~ second respondent who in fict belonged to the Hindu Reddy community contested the election from the reserv.cd constituency falsely claiming that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Konda Reddy community and that by virtue of section JOO(!) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the election was void. It was also contended that at the t:me .of .the sc"rutiny of the nominaHon papers the appellant had raised this objection but that the Returning Officer, without holding a proper enquiry, rejected the objection relying upon a Certificate of the

Tebsild>r that the second respondent belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Konda Reddy community. The high Court rejected the election petition and upheld the election.

-Allowing the app.eal (by the Court)

HELD : There is no dispute that the Konda Reddy community is a Scheduled Tribe community. On the evidence available on record it is impossible for any Court to reasonably conclude that the second respondent belonged to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community. In fact, he belonged to the Hindu Reddiar community, which is. not a Scheduled Tribe co.Jmun1ty. Therefore, his election from the reserved c9nstituency was void under section 100 (1) (c) of the Act. [19D-G)

• per Varadarajan, J. Other Judges expressing no opinion.

With the laudable object of promoting the educational, economic and social advancement of the Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the Government had been awarding scholarships, hostel accommodation and other facilities, making reservation of seats in Professional Colfeges and institutions of higher learning and for oppointments -to Government and quasi ..

Oovefnment jobs. But not infrequently, fafse certificates are obtined by others to obtain these benefits thus depriving the persons for whose advantage these benefits are created. The false Claim in this case which es_caped the scrulinY of even the High cOurt had to be negatived only after considerable effort and expenditure on the part of those who wish to lay bare the facts. The same kind of scrutiny and contest could not be expetced from students and •

• -,

'Y .

It. 1.>Ai.ANiMttntu v. RE:t'URNING OFPICER,(Varat4-rqian, J.) 11

candidates belongl.ng to Backward Classes, .Scheduled Cestes and Scheduled Tribes -when these benefits are sought on false certificates. So long as the benefits are continued folthese classes, the Government mach~ry must.

- exerci~ strict scrl?tiny. The Governme.ut must 'Stop any fraud which may be committed on it as well as these classes of.people by taking appropriate steps in regard to grant of certificates, while at ltie same time eosurig that rsons belonging to these ,1asm obtain the requisite certificates without difficulty from the authorities empowered to issue the same. [19H20AJ

CIVIL APPELLATll JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4027 of 1982. .

From the Judgment and Order dated the 27th September, 1982 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Election Petition No. 4 of 1980. ·

P. Chldmbaram, Parmeswaran, P. Manoharam and A.S.

Nambiar for the Appellant. n"

, A. V. Rangam an(t Ms; Sar/a Chandra for respondent No. L

' S.N. Kacker, M.G. Ramachandran and K. Kam.madasam for the .respondents. , • The Judgment of the Co'urt was delivered by

VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against th.e judgment of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court dismissing Election Petition No .. 4 of 1980 with costs quantified at Rs. 1000. The. Election Petition was filed for declaring the election of the second respondent V. Arangarajan alias V. Rangarajan alias Perumal to the.'.I'amil Nadu Legislative Assembly from No. 157, , Uppiliapuram Scheduled Tribes reserved Assembly Constituency in Thuraiyur taluk, Tiruchirapali district, in the election held on . 28.S.1980 as void and further . declaring that ttie appellant R. Palanimuthn has been dnly elected from thai constituency. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we allowed the appeal on 17.12.1983 totbe_extent of setting aside the election of ihe second ·

respondent for reasons to follow and directed the parties to bear the respective costs. Now we )lroceed to give our reasons. · ' .

"' II'he polling tOQk plac~ on 28.5.1980 and . the result was . announced after the counting was over on L6.1980. The second - .H

SUPREMifcOli.Rt REPORTS tl984j 3 S.C.R.

A . respondent belonging to the AIADMK

0 secured 43,263 votes while the appellant belonging to the Congress (I) party, bis closest rival, secured 40,997 votes. The other candidates in the field, respondents 3 to 5 secured less than 1752 votes each and the second respondent

was declared Clected. ·

the constituency , has been declared by the notification dated 26.2.1969 issued by .the Election Commission oflndia under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976 to he a Scheduled tribes constitnency.

Consequently on \y candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes as per the Constitution and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order 1950 as amended in 1976 could contest for election from this constituency h.aving regard to Article 173 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.

The nominations of !ill the twelve candidates who filed their nominations before the last date fixed for the purpose were accepted by the first respondeni, Returning Officer as valid. Later, seven .of

thpse candidates withdrew leaving only the appellant and respondeflts - 2 to 5 in the field.

By the Scheduled . Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, Konda Reddies in Tamil Nadu except Kanyakumari district. and Shencottah taluk in Triunelveli district have been declared as belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. Later, by the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduld Tribes (Amendment) .Act 108 of 1976 the exception made in respect of Kanyakumaii district and Shencottah taluk in Triunelveli district' has been removed with the result that Konda Reddies are thereafter shown to be existi.ng throughout Tamil Nadu.

Only Sclreduled Tribes candidates could contest from the constituency concerned' in view ot the provisions referred to above.

The appellant's contention is that the second respondent dos not belong to the. Konda Reddy Scheduled TriQe community as Claimed by him but is a Hindu Reddy and was therefore not qualified to be chosen to contest from the reserved .. constituency and consequetitly his election is void under Section 100 (I) (c) of the Act. The second

respondent opposed the election petition contending that he belongs to t.he Konda. Reddy Scheduled. Tri.be community and was therefore

- cntitld' t\) contest from the constituency and his election is valid~

\...

. I!.. PALANiMUTIDJ v. RETURNING OFFICER (Varadarajan, J.) 13

The appellant filed objection to the acceptance of the second r.esportdent's nomination at 'the time of scrutiny of nominations by the first respondent, Returning Officer, contending that the second respondent does not. belng to the Konda Reddy community and was not a Scheduled 'fribe candidate. This objection was admittedly rejected by the first respondent who appears to have relied upon the Tehsildar's certificate: The appellant's contention is that the first respondent rejected his objection to the, acceptance of the omination of the sec11nd respondent relyirtg upon the certificate obtained by the second respoudent from the Tebsildar .to the effect that be belongs to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe . community without holding a proper enquiry .and applying his own mind to the principles of law and the n:iatedal placed before him. ' •

On the pieadings the learned Single Judge who tried the election petition framed th~ following four material issues:

!. Is the second respondent a person not belonging to the D Konda Reddy (ScheduledJTrihe) community?

2. Was the acceptance of the nomination of the .second respondent improper?

3. Is the election of the second respondent liable to be declared ·~ void under sections 100 (I) (c), 100 (!) (d) (i) and 100 (!)° (d)(iv) of the Representation of the Pe?ple Act, 1951? , ·

4. Is the petitioner entitled to a further declaration under s.

101 of the Act?

On consideration of the oral and documentary evidnce adduced before him by-the parties as also the evidence or three other. persons examined as CWS 1 to 3, the learned Single Judge held that the second respondent belongs to.the Konda Rddy Scheduled Tribe community• and 'he upheld the second respondent's election and dismissed the

lection petition with costs as mentioned above. In coming to the conclusion that the second respondent belongs to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community the learned Single Judge. found that the .evidence of t, he second. respondent RW-1 and of his father RW-9 that the second respondent belongs to the Konda Reddy COQ\munity is corroborated by the evidence of no.t only RWs-2, 3, 4 and 6 but also by tile evidence of RW-5 who belongs to the Naidu community l\Dd knows the. 111emers of tqe scond respondent's . famHy . and br .

I the evidence of RW-7 who belongs to the Oorali community- The learned Judge has made the following general observation regarding the witnesses exainin:ed on the second respondent's side: '

"Generaliy I find that all the witnesses who _come to depose on behalf of the second respondent were elderly persons and have impressed me very much as telling the truth.

They are also. independent witnesses and expected to know the community of th!" second respondent in view of theit residence in the village and their long _acquaintance. The veracity of their statements hild not been shaken (in) the least in the cross-examination. I have n6 hesitation in accepting the evidence of these witnesses when they state that the second respondent belongs to Konda Reddy community which is a Scheduled Tribe."

Before us it was not disputed that the constituency concerne d has been reserved by law for Scheduled Tribes candidates and . therefore only Schednled Tribes candidates could. contest for election

from that constituency. It was also not disputed that the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 contested as Scheduled Tribes candidates , and that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and the election of the second respondent would be void under s. 100 (1) (c) orthe Act and the appeal would have to be allowed if the second respondent does. not belmg' to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community. The only dispute before us is on th~ question whether the second respondent belongs to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community. The appellant's stand on this point is that the second respondent does not belong to the Konda Reddy community and is not a Scheduled Tribe candidate entitled to co!l'pete for election from the constituency concerned l; iut is a Hindu Reddy, while the stand of the second respondent is that he is a •'.Konda Reddy and belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and was therefore entitled to compete. for election from the constituency and has been validly elected. There is uo dispute that Konda Reddy community is a Scheduled Tribe community. Arguments were advanced by Mr. P. Chidambram, learned counsel who appeared for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Kackar, learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the second respondent on this only question. The first respondent's counsel Mr. A .. V. Ra, ngam did riot advance any

argument.

lt is Se.en frolll the evi\len9e of PW-12, t)le t)l¢n cliiefl3le9tora) . . . •

It. PALANiMUrHU v. ltBTUllNiNG OFPiCEit (Varadarajan, J.) 15

Officer, Tamil Nadu that the constituency concerned was a nonreserved or general constituency upto February 1979 and that it was converted into a Scheduled Tribes reserved constituency by the notification Ex. P-76 dated 26.2.1979 issued by the Election Commission oflndiaunder the.provisions of the Scheduled Castes and '. Scheduled Ttibes erder !Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into force on 19.9.1976. The appellant and respondents 2 to 5 contested in the election held in the constituency concerned on 28.5.1980 as

Scneduled Tribes candidates. The second respondeut R W-1 . had obtained the certificate Ex. R-1 dated 25.10.1977 from the Tahsildar Thtlraiyur soon after the inclusion of Konda Reddy coilfmunity in -the list of Scheduled Tribes by the said amendment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Order) Act, 1976. Theparties relied" upon oral and documntary evidence before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for proving their respective•contentions.

But before us much reliance was not placed on oral evidence and our attention was invited to certain relevant documents. The oral evidence adduced on the side of the appellant is to the effect that the sec_ond respondent belongs to the Hindu Reddiar community which is not included in the Scheduled Tribes while the oral evidence adduced on the side of the .second respondent is to the effect. 'that he belongs to the Konda Reddy community Which is a Scheduled Tribe community. . . .

Mr. Chidambram invited our attention to four sets of documents. Exhibits P-26, P-27, P-28, P-29, P-30, P-31 and P-32 are documents.relating to the second respondent's family and constitute one set. Exhibits R-2, R-3, P-23, P-24 and P-63 constitute the second

sE.exht_. _Ebthibpit 9

s P(-7), Pp1 1 2 0 , P(d)32a adndpP 5 - 9 58 con 1 ttittuteththe r thirthd sett. f t 1 s - a , • n - cQns 1 u e e 1our se .

Exhibits P-7, Pl2, P-32 and P-58 constitµte the third set. We sha11 consider these documents seJ'arately.

Ex. R-9 is t\le sale deed d11ted 4.3.1899 executed by Veera Reddy in favour of Chellammal wife of the 6econd respondent's G grand flM'her Perumal Reddy. Ex. P-26 dated 8.10.1926 is the mot!· gage dr_ed executed by the second respondent's father Venkata Reddy and his parents Perumal R'eddy and Chellammal in favour of one Narayana Reddy. Ex, P-27 is an Order of 1965 sanctioning {in agricultural Joan of Rs. 2000/- to the second respondent's father .. Venkata Red\ly. Ex. P-28 dated 7.10.1970 is the sale deed executed

 by the second respondent's father 'Venkata Reddy in favour of H

feriasar aqd another. Ex. f~9 is an El\etion Reister e)\q"a~

' ,,, showing that Challammal, wife of Venkata Reddy

0 is the decree holder-auctioIJ, purchaser in E.P. No: 270 of 19'H in 0. S. No. 1865 of 1970 on the file of 'the Additional District .Munsiff's Court

' . ' Thuraiyur. Ex. P-30 dated 9.7.1973 is the sale deed executed by

Chellammal wife of Venkata Reddy in favour of one Veeiasaniy and others. Ex. P'31 dated 13.9.1976 is the sale deed executed in favour of the' second respondent described a'S the son of Venkata • Reddy by one Ramasamy Reddy and others. In all these documents the second respondent's family's commQnity is mentioned as Hindu

Reddy community.

Ex. •R-2 dated 15.4.1958 is the first page of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate relating to the second respo9dent who is stated therein to be a Hindu Reddiar by caste. Ex. R-3 is the . Secoddary SchoOI .Leaying Certificate of the second respondent's sister Leelavathi born on 15.12.1948. The second ' respondent; s. father has verified a]l the entries in columns 1 to 6 of Ex. R-3 to be

correct and has undertaken not to demand any change in those entries 'in future-., Against column 2. (iii) relating to Leelavathi's

commnity, as to whether she belongs to Scheduld Caste or Scheduled Tribe or most Backward Class or is a C~>nvert to Chiistianjty from auy Scheduled Caste the sec_ond respondent's father )las an.s- . wered that query saying that she does not belong to any of those castes by an emphatic 'No'.~RW-1 has admitted that fa:. R-3 relates to his sister Leelavathi and contains his father's signature. He has, howev; r, stated that his]father is illiterate and bas put his signature in the original Ex. R-3 without knowing what it contains. Ex.· P-23 is an extract from the birth register rlating to a male child Veerama Reddy son of Venkata Reddy. and Chellammal born on . 29.12.1937. Ex. P:24 is another birth register extract relating to the birth of a'maTe child.Perumal, evidently the second respondent; on 6.6.1943 to the parents Venkata Reddy and ChellammaJ.. Ex; P-6~ is another birth register extract relating to the birth of a female child l>orn on 1.9.1949: Venkata Reddy himself had informed the authority concerned about the birth on the next day ilnd has signed the entry in token, thereof. In . all these 'documents also the second respondent and his father are mentioned as belonging to the Hindu Reddiar community. •

Ex. P-7 dated 11.6.1963 is the second respondent's application for admission into a Cooperative Traiqing Institut~. Ex. P-12 dated 12.6.1972 is the second respondent's applicaH, on for admissio.n of his daughter Geetha in a Panchayat Union Elementary School. Ex.' J>-32 is tM .certified \lO)?Y of the plaintiµ Small Caqse $4it, :\'lo. 16?

...... c

~-· -,~"

.l!.._PAI.ANIMU'IHU-V. RETURNi:NG OFFICER (Varadarajan, J.) 17

.of 1980 instituted by the second respondent in the District Munsiffs' . Court, Thuraiyur. The second respondent has asserted in bis evidence that he signed that plaint prepared by the Advocate's clerk . wilho_ut going through its cointents. Ex. P-58 is the entry in the

Service Register relating to the second respondent under. his signa- 'ture dated 5.7 .1967 .. In' all these documents also the second respondent is dtscribed as a Hindu Reddiar,

The above documents show that the second respondent : and his 'father 1 Venkata Reddy and grandfather Perumal Reddy belong to the Hindu Re4diar community. The appellant . gave notice uftder Order 12 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil procedure

o the_ second respondent for admitting certain facts. One of the facls he was required to admit is that Hindu Reddiar community is not a Scheduled Tfibe community. The second respondent had ad- . mitted that the Hindu Recldiar comm'uity is not a Schduled Tribe community and stated that .he J:iad obtained the certificate dated 25.10.1977 from Tahsildar ofThuraiyur taluk to-the effect that he , longs to the Konda Reddy community, and .that he had applied , on an earlier date for the grant of that certificate in order to. enable him to aJ?ply for a job. Faced with the aforesaid documents which .clearly show that the second . .respondent and the. members.of his : family belong to the Hindu Raddiar conimunity whichis admittedly

, not a-Scheduled Tribe_ c0mmunity the second respondent has sought- E . to get ov.er the difficulty by saying that Konda Reddy. communitY , is.asub-caste of the Hindu Reddiar community. This explanation, . cannot . be accepted having re11ard to the facts .and circumstances of . the case.

The last set of docuinents have been produced to show that the sec_ond -respondent had not flaimed to belong to the Konda Reddy Scheduled_ Tribe conlll)Unity though he would have done so if be belongs to that community in fact but has merely s.tated that he is the son ofVenkata Reddy. -Ex. f-9. (a} dated 12.3.1968 is the • second respondent's appliqation for appofotmnt as Supervisor in a; Land Mortg[; g~.Bankwhere b.e has described himself as the son of Venkata Reddy. Ex. P-10 (d).<lated 26.3.1918 is the second respon- . dent's application for appointment as a Trustee in Sri .Prasanna . Ven)catachalapathy temple and l)ther terqples at Thuraiyur where also , li, y has described himself 'as the son of Venkata.Reddy. Ex. P-59 ,:d11ted 8. l. l 9l'i5 is Jhe se, cond-respondent's application for appoint . , ment as a J_unfor Assistant ill: th, e 'thuraiyurural Cooperative Bank

. where he .has, describd J:iirqsel(.as the son of Veqkala Reddy. Ex.

_..p.lQ {d) tnay not.serve the_pu, l'pose for which t.his s.et of. documents al!a'l'e beep ; produed. in the; absence Of any meterial ori record to : ,! . - - '- ... - ... ' '. -· ' " ; - '• .. ·, ·- _._ - - '

A •

SUPl\EME COURT REPORTS

[1984) 3 S.C.R.

show that the second respondent would have stood to benefit in the matter of appointment as a trustee of the temples if he had men- • tioned that he belongs to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community. It is common knowledge that in Tamil Nadu reservation for certain percentage of appointments in Government and quasi- Government services is based on the community to which applicants' belong. The reservation of certain percentage 'of the appointmentss to Backward Classes on the one hand and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes together on. the other has been made depending upon the relative population of those communities in that State ..

Sch6larships and hostel-accommodation are. available in that State to the Backward Classes and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes students subject to e!jgibility. These facts are well known in Tamil .Nadu. It is not prol:>able that the second respondent who had applied in 1965 and 1968 for. appointment as a Junior f..ssistatit in.

Thuraiyur Rural Cooperative Bank and as Supervisor in a Land Mortgage Bank was not awar.e that it would be advantageous for him to mention in those applications that he belonged to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community if in fact he had belonged to that community. We think tht he would riot have failed to mention in those applications that he belongs to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe .community if in fact he had belonged to that community.

While the first three of the four sets of documents mentioned above . probablise the fact that the second respondent belongs to the Hindu Reddiar community which admitteolly is not a Scheduled Tribe community, Ex. P-9 (a) andlP-59 in the last set of documents improbablise the second respondent's 'case that he beiongs to the Konda •Reddy Scheduled Tribe community. Ex. R-3 which is one of the documents in the first set is a very important document which conclusively esta)>lishes that the second respondent does riot belong to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Trib.e community, fodn that document . which had been . verified by thejsecond respondents's father to be true under his signature with an undertaking that he would not demand any change in any of the eniries in columns 1 to 6 the second respondent's father has sti+ted that. his daughter Lee!avathi to wh9m Ex. R-3 rlates does not belong.to the Scheduled Tribe or scheduled Caste or Most Backward Class and was not a Convert to Christianity from any Scheduled Cste. The s.econd respondent's father RW-9 has conveniently stated ii).. his evidel).ce 'that he does not know to read or write Tamil, Telugu or any oiher language, that he used .to previously sign in Tamiland that lfe has lost .hill eye-sight and COJild not see 'whether El\&. ~4 l\lld l, l-~ conta4l hi4

R. PALANiMUT!IU v. RETURNiNG O'FFICER (Varadarajan, J.) 19

signature. It is not possible to rccept the evidence of RW-1 who has admitted that Ex. R-3 relates to his siater Leela:vathi and con. •

tains his father' signature, as mentioned above, that his father RW9 is illiterate and he had signed Ex. R:3 witbout knowing what it con tained. R W-9 appears to be ignorant of the existence of the community know!) as Konda Reddy community, for he has stated in his evidence that _ther_e. is no community known as Konda Reddy communify though earlier he had stated in his evidence that he belongs to the Konda Reddy community. RW-1 has_ stated in his evidence that he came to know that he belongs to the Konda Reddy community only from the information given to him by his father RW-9. It is not the case of the second respon.dent that his father RW-9 himself came to know that he belongs to the Konda Reddy community only after the date on which he put his signature in the aforesaid imporiant document Ex. R-3 in which he has clearly. admitted that.his daughter .Leelavathi does not belong to. any Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, RW-9 who has Clearly admitted in Ex, R-3 that his daughter Leelavathi does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community could not have informed the second respondent that they belonged to the Konda Reddy community. On the. evidence available on record in this case it is absolutely impossible for any court to reasonably conclude that the second respondent belongs to the 'Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community and not the Hindu Reddiar community. We may state here that Mr. S.N.

Kackar found it almost impossible to support the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the second respondent belongs to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community and that his nomination and subsequent election as a Member of the tamil Nadu Legislative .

Assembly from the Scheduled Tribes .reserved 'Constituency concerned are valid. For these reasons we hold that the second respondent does not belong tp the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe commyunit but belongs to the Hindu Reddiar commuity which is not a Scheduled Tribe community and that his election from. the Scheduled Tribes reserved constituency concerned is void under" s. 100 (l)(c) of the Act. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the second respondent' selection with costs as sta, ted above.

Before I part with this appeal I would like to say what we feel that the Goyernment of Tamil Nadu should notice for taking such remedial action as it may deem necessary. Scholarships. are awarded, hostel accommodation and facilities are made available and reservation of seats in professional and other colleges and institutions of ]iigher learnin!l and for appointment to posts in

. G . •

c ..

20 ..

government and quasi-government service have been made in Tamil Nadu for the backward lasses forming one group and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. forming another group on the ratfo of their population with the laudable object of helping their educational, economic and ocial advancement. The second respondent who has now been found to be a Hindu Reddiar and not a Scheduled Tribe Konda Reddy, had admittedly obtained the Tahsildar; s certificate dated 25.10.1977 to the effect that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Konda Reddy community adqiittedly with the object of securing a job as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. If he had succeeded in getting any job in gvvernment servic~ or qu1sigovernment service on fhe basis of tliat certificate it is needless to say that he would have deprived some real Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. candidate getting the job on the bassis of the aforesaid reservation. The second respondent has used that certificate for obtaining nomination and electloa in a Scheduled Tribes Constituency of the Tamil Nad.u Legislative Assem':>ly even thvugh he ought to have known that other candidates in the keenly contested election might raise .objection to ; his false or wrong claim that .he .is . a_ Scheduled Tribe. candidate. The wrong claim which escaped the scrutiny of even the High Court had to be negatived only by this Court after the appellant had tken. a lot of pains and incurred considerable expenditure in filing the present appeal. This

amount of scrqtiny and contest could not.be expected from stuaents and candidates for; appointments who belong to Backward Classes scheduled Castes and. Scheduled Trib, s. If 11tempts are made by persons not belonging to any of these communities at securing the

speCial benefits to wh\ch these Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students and candidates are entitled under the rules in force in that State, an.d there is. no proper scrutiny of the claim of such persons that they belong to these classes the benefits which are intend\'d by the Stte to go tq these classes will be taken away by those to whom they are not really intended. Therefore, so long as these benefits are continued for the aforesaid classes strict scrutiny has to be made by the State Government machib.ery and the fraud which may be committed. on the State and those ciasses of people for whom these benefits are really. intended by those for , whom these benefits are not meant by producing .false community certificates has to be'stopped by the government taking appropriate . steps. At the same time it must be nsured that it is not made difficult for persons really belonging to these class.es obtaining the .. necessary community cer\ificates from those at1_14oriseq o issl\e, th.~

. '

R. P;\Lrn!M'UTHU v. irnTURNINQ, QFF!CER (F. ALI&. R. MISRA, jJ.) 21 ·

same.

A copy of the judg1Jlent shall be forwarded to the Chief A Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. ·

FAZAL ALI & RANGANATH MISRA, JJ. We entirely agree with the reasons given by brother Varadarajan, J. for allowing the appeal.

However, we refrain from. expressing any opinio11 on the observations made by our learned Brother in the last paragraph of the judgment, beginning with the words "Before we . part with" and ending with "authorised to issue the same".

P.B.R.

Appeal allowed .

. '

. '