Dr. C. Velayudhan vs State of Kerala and Others

Balakrishnan, J.—This Original Petition was referred to a Division Bench in view of the important questions of law involved in this case. The petitioner claimed himself to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community. His caste status was disputed and the matter was considered by a Scrutiny Committee and the Committee passed Ext. P10 proceedings determining the caste status of the petitioner. Ext. P10 is challenged in this Original Petition. According to the petitioner, this Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government consisted only of two members, whereas there should have been three members in the Committee. Petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Committee on merits. We do not propose to go into the merits of the case.

The Government of Kerala, as per Ext. P7 order, constituted a Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste status of persons in doubtful cases. This Committee was constituted based on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, A detailed procedure has been enunciated by the Supreme Court as to the manner in which the caste status of a person should be decided in a doubtful case. In Clause-4 in paragraph-13 of the judgment, the composition of the Committee is mentioned. Clause-4 reads as follows:

"All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the Department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities."

In the instant case, the Government of Kerala constituted a Committee consisting of the Secretary to Government in charge of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department. He shall be the Chairman of the Committee. The Members are: The Director of Scheduled Caste Development Department (for SC claims) and Director of Scheduled Tribes Development Department (for ST claims) and the Director, Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (KIRTADS), Kozhi-kode, was included as the third Member of the Committee. Government later issued a further order on 19-9-1995 to the effect that in case where the Director of KIRTADS had submitted a report regarding the caste status of a person, he shall not be a member of the Committee.

In the case of the petitioner, Director of the KIRTADS had submitted an earlier report regarding the caste status. Naturally, he cannot be a member of the Committee. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the matter was heard by the Committee on 23-3-1996 there were only two members of the Committee and, therefore, the Committee was not constituted in accordance with the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (cited supra) and therefore it was defective and it lacked jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Learned Government Pleader, however, contends that the Secretary to Government in charge of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department was the Chairman of the Committee and the Director of Scheduled Caste Development Department was the member of the Committee and he was also holding the charge of Director of Scheduled Tribes Development Department and it is urged that the member of the Committee had been acting in dual capacity i.e., Director of Scheduled Caste Development Department as well as the Director of Scheduled Tribes Development Department and hence the Committee was properly constituted. We are unable to accept this contention. The direction contained in the Supreme Court judgment is to the effect that there shall be three Members in the Committee. The Committee has been given very important powers and duties to determine the caste status of the persons. The decision of the Committee having serious consequences with regard to the rights of the person whose caste status is decided and in such circumstances the Committee shall have the composition as directed by the Supreme Court.

Learned Government Pleader sought support the decision in Ext. P 10 based on the decision reported in Election Commission of India and another Vs. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and another, ). That is a case where the question of disqualification of Ms. J. Jayalalitha has come up for consideration before the Election Commission. Ms. J. Jayalalitha wanted that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not deal with the matter. In that case the Supreme Court directed that two Election Commissioners shall hear the matter. It was further held that:

"If the two Election Commissioners reach a unanimous opinion, the Chief Election Commissioner will have the opinion communicated to the Governor. If the two Election Commissioners do not reach a unanimous decision in the matter of expressing their opinion on the issue referred to the Election Commission, it would be necessary for the Chief Election Commissioner to express his opinion on the doctrine of necessity."

The above direction was given in the peculiar circumstance and when Ms. J. Jayalalitha expressed the opinion that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not bear the matter. We do not have such a situation. The petitioner''s contention is that all the three Members shall hear the matter and take a decision.

Eearned Government Pleader cited another decision in Indermani Kirtipal Vs. Union of India and others, ). That is a case where a single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal decided a matter and that was challenged by the aggrieved party on the ground that u/s 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the single Member had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The Supreme Court repelled the contention on the ground that the petitioner therein had not raised this question of jurisdiction at the earliest pointed time. It was held that it was only an improper disposal and did not affect the validity of the order.

In the instant case, the matter was heard by the Committee on 23-3-1996 and on 25-3-1996, the counsel for the petitioner sent Ext. P9 telegram to the Committee stating that the Committee was not validly constituted. ''It is not correct to say that the petitioner did not raise the question of jurisdiction of the Committee.

We arc of the view that the Committee should have been consisting of three Members as directed by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (cited supra). Any decision which is made by the Committee consisting of lesser number of Members cannot be treated as valid in the eye of law. We set aside Ext. P 10 order passed by the Committee, and also other consequential orders, if any, passed.

As the matter has been pending for a long time under various proceedings, we direct that it should be decided at the earliest. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the Committee is now having three Members and we direct the petitioner to appear before the Secretary to Government in charge of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department, who is the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee at Thiru-vananthapuram, on 28-9-1996 at 10.30a.m. without any further notice. The Scrutiny Committee shall pass orders at the earliest and give a copy to the petitioner.

Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Petition allowed.