AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Balasubramanian, J.—The Writ Petitioner joined the services of the Postal Department on temporary duty on 4.5.1983 and her
appointing authority was the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kancheepuram.
On 12.11.1983, she was regularised in the same post and on 11.7.1991, she was promoted as Post Master. While joining the service in the Postal
Department, as stated above, the Writ Petitioner produced a community certificate dated 24.10.1982 issued by the Tahsildar, Tiruttani describing
her as a person; belonging to Konda Reddy Community which is a notified Scheduled Tribe.
Thereupon, it appears that an enquiry was directed to be conducted by her employer regarding the truth of her community certificate. Thus, the
proceedings went to the file of the District Collector, Chengalpattu-MGR District. He referred the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Trivellore to conduct an enquiry and give a report. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and heard the Writ Petitioner. The Writ
Petitioner is stated to have produced two ancient documents of the years 1908 and 1915 in support of her case. She is also stated to have
produced the judgment dated 14.10.1985 in W.P. No. 12656 of 1984 on the file of this Court to sustain her claim. The Writ Petitioner''s husband
was the Petitioner in that Writ Petition. The Revenue Divisional Officer also recorded a statement from the Writ Petitioner.
On 7.10.1987, the Revenue Divisional Officer had sent his report to the District Collector. A copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional
Officer was also furnished to the Writ Petitioner. Thereafter, the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Kancheepuram directed the Petitioner to
appear before him for an enquiry on 2.8.1988 regarding the truth or otherwise of her community certificate. The Petitioner attended the enquiry
and produced the records which she had already produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer when he conducted the enquiry and also the
judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 3363 of 1983. Thereupon, the District Collector issued a show-cause notice dated 12.3.1992 to the Writ
Petitioner which met with an explanation dated, 19.3.1992 from her. The District Collector conducted a personal hearing on 14.12.1992 before
whom also, the Writ Petitioner produced the records referred to earlier. Thereafter, the District Collector passed the order dated 25.12.1992
challenged in this Writ Petition cancelling the Community Certificate dated 24.10.1982 issued by the Tahsildar, Tiruttani declaring the Writ
Petitioner as a person belonging to Konda Reddy Community/notified Scheduled Tribe. It is this order of the Collector that is being challenged in
this Writ Petition.
Heard Mr. G. Desappan, learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner and Mr. S. Gopinathan, learned Government Advocate for the
Government. On a short ground, the Writ Petition has to be allowed. The District Collector in the order challenged in the Writ Petition had held
that the Writ Petitioner belongs to Kondalakulam caste and therefore she, claiming to be a person belonging to Konda Reddy Community, does
not belong, to Konda Reddy Community. In other words, the conclusion of the District Collector is that Kondalakulam caste and Konda Reddy
Community are two different castes and therefore the community certificate obtained by the Writ Petitioner as though she belongs to Konda Reddy
Community which is a notified Scheduled Tribe is definitely on a misrepresentation.
The main thrust of arguments of Mr. G. Desappan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that after having held that the Writ Petitioner
belongs to Kondalakulam caste, the Collector completely erred in law in cancelling her community certificate since this Court in a number of cases
had held that Kondalakulam caste and Konda Reddy community are one and the same and there is no distinction between the two. Learned
Counsel, for this purpose, brought to my notice a number of judgments out of which I am going to refer only a few..
The order in W.P. No. 12656 of 1984 is dated 14.10.1985. It was by a learned single Judge of this Court. This Writ Petitioner''s husband was
a party in that Writ Petition. The question involved was whether the writ Petitioner in that case belonging to Kondalakulam community can be
classified as a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The learned Judge, in that judgment, referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
W.P. No. 3363 of 1983 wherein it was decided that people belonging to Kondalakulam caste and Konda Reddy community are one and the
same. The judgment in W.P. No. 3363 of 1983 is also produced before me and it was by the then Chief Justice and a learned Judge of this Court.
In that judgment, learned judges had referred to the statement of the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer to the effect that his enquiry revealed
that ""Kondala"" in Telugu is a plural term of ""Konda"". Similar issue again arose before the same Bench in the judgment rendered in W.P. Nos. 2197
and 3462 of 1983. In that judgment, the learned Judges have stated as follows:
...As a matter of fact, the view taken by the Collector that the Petitioner belongs to Kondalakulam community is based on a misapprehension that
the community is different from the community of Konda Reddys. We have in W.P. Nos. 3363 of 1983 referred to the view of the District Adi
Dravidar welfare that Kondalakulam is synonymous to Konda Reddy Community and the former is merely an old colloquial expression describing
the community of Konda Reddys.
Therefore, it is clear from the judgments that the Court at all times had accepted the Kondalakulam caste as a description in plurality of Konda
Reddy.
As against this, now the learned Government Advocate wants to rely upon the letter dated 20.4.1987 in letter No. 12018/85 SCP (R Cell)
stated to have been issued by the Government of India stating that Kondalakulam caste and Konda Reddy community are two different
communities and that Kondalakulam has nothing to do with Konda Reddy. Placing reliance on this, the learned Government Advocate would
contend that this letter of the Government of India being subsequent to the judgment of this Court referred to above, it alone would prevail as the
power to notify any community as Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste is only with the Government of India and in exercise of that power, the
proceedings referred to above are purported to have been issued. A copy of the proceedings is not before this Court. In fact, the District
Collector, while passing the order under challenge, relied upon those proceedings alone to cancel the community certificate of the Writ Petitioner.
Mr. G. Desappan, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend that this letter of the Government of India referred to above is not a
notification issued by the President of India exercising his power under the Constitution of India and, therefore, no weight can be attached to it. In
fact, learned Counsel would state that such a defence raised by the State had been repelled in the judgment reported in 1994 1 MLJ 95
(Purushotama Reddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer). A learned Judge of this Court in a subsequent judgment dated 30.7.1998 in W.P. No.
399 of 1990 had extracted the judgment reported in Purushothama Reddy''s case 1994-I-MLJ 95 as far as the issue in question is concerned. It is
therefore better to extract the relevant portion from the judgment of this Court reported in Purushotama Reddy''s case (1994-I-MLJ 95) as under:
Mr .G. Bharadwaj, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, rejecting the
application of the Petitioner thrice, as if the Petitioner''s daughter did not belong to ''Konda Reddy'' Community is erroneous in law in view of the
orders of the Division Bench followed by Venkataswami, J. in W.P. No. 7242 of 1986 dated 5.9.1986. Learned Counsel further points out that in
the impugned order, the Revenue Divisional Officer has referred to a document in which the term ''Konthala'' appears and has stated that
''Konthalakulam'' is different from ''Konda Reddy'' community. Learned Counsel argued that the statement made by the Revenue Divisional Officer
in the impugned order dated 15.10.1991 is not in accordance with law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in R. Valan v. The Collector
of Chengalpattu W.P. No. 3363 of 1986 dated 31.7.1986, consisting of Chandurkar, C.J. and Sathiadev, J (as he then was) and followed by the
order of Venkataswami, J. in P.N. Gunasekar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvellore W.P. No. 7242 of 1986 dated 5.9.1986. That apart,
it is contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not taken into consideration the materials including the reports of the Revenue Inspector and
the Village; Administrative Officer and in as much as the Revenue Divisional Officer has failed to take the relevant materials into consideration, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the inability of the Petitioner to produce a
witness cannot be taken advantage by the Respondents to reject the request of the Petitioner for the issuance of the community certificate. It is also
pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that even though there are instructions of the Government to the effect that ''Kondalakulam''
and ''Konda Reddy'' communities are different, law laid down by this Court has to weigh more than the instructions of the Government.''.'' Learned
Judge while deciding the case in W.P. No. 399 of 1990 had also declined to accept the argument of the State that the letter of the Government of
India referred to earlier in this judgment, viz., letter dated 2C.4.1987 would govern the issue.
In as much as the District Collector had himself found that the Writ Petitioner belongs to Kondalakulam caste and this Court on more than one
occasion had affirmed that Kondalakulam caste is a plural description of Konda Reddy Community. I am of the opinion that the order under
challenge cannot be sustained. This Court also in the two judgments last referred to had held that administrative instructions of the Government
would not have the effect of nullifying the law laid down by this Court.
For all the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition has to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed without any order as
to costs. The Order challenged in the Writ Petition is quashed and set aside. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 4469 of 1993 and 23606 of 1995 are
closed. RR/VCS/