AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the contesting parties are hereinafter referred to as per their
ranking in W.P. No. 31246 of 2007 and the second respondent in W.P. No. 32249 of 2007 is hereinafter referred to as the Committee.
The petitioner has joined the services of the respondent Bank as a Clerk at the Erode Branch on 15.7.1982 under the Scheduled Tribe quota
on the basis of a community certificate issued by the Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District, showing her as belonging to
''Kurumans'' community. When she produced the original certificates, the Bank found that in the S.S.L.C. Book, her community was entered as
''Vellalar'' community, which is not a ST. Therefore, the community certificate produced by the petitioner was referred for verification by the
District Collector, Dharmapuri District and the Bank issued a memo. on 2.9.1982 to the petitioner to produce a fresh community certificate.
According to the petitioner, she applied to the Tahsildar for a fresh community certificate and even though necessary enquiries were made by the
revenue officials, there was delay in issuing the community certificate and in the meantime, the Bank has also proposed to initiate disciplinary
proceedings and therefore, she has filed W.P. No. 3541 of 1983 before this Court praying for a Writ of Mandamus to treat her as a Scheduled
Tribe person on the basis of the community certificate dated 28.5.1982 issued by the Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, without insisting on the
production of a fresh community certificate from the District Collector, and the said writ petition was dismissed as premature on 3.2.1984. The
next day i.e. on 4.2.1984, the petitioner submitted a letter to the respondent Bank contending that the community certificate already produced by
her as obtained from the valid and competent authority is genuine and therefore, there was no need to furnish a fresh community certificate as it is
no longer necessary to produce a fresh community certificate from the Collector of the District, but, however, the respondent Bank issued a charge
memo. dated 16.5.1985 alleging that the community was not shown as Scheduled Tribe in the S.S.L.C. Book and that she did not produce any
community certificate from the Collector as required and on enquiry from the Collector, the respondent Bank was convinced that the petitioner do
not belong to ''Kurumans'' community but belonged to Vellala Caste.
At this juncture, on the part of the respondent Bank, they would plead that the Collector, Dharmapuri District, by his communication dated
19.4.1985, has informed them that the petitioner belonged to ''Vellalar'' community and hence they have issued the show-cause notice to the
petitioner. After enquiry, a show-cause notice dated 18.11.1985 was issued by the disciplinary authority proposing to inflict the punishment of
dismissal from service and aggrieved of the same, she filed W.P. No. 12797 of 1985, praying to quash the same, but it was dismissed on
16.12.1985. The Writ Appeal preferred against the same also met the same fate of dismissal. In the meantime, the disciplinary authority has
confirmed the punishment of dismissal from service by the order dated 6.1.1986, based on which the respondent Bank passed an order dated
7.1.1986. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2721 of 1986 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this
Court, in the order dated 9.10.1996 has ordered as follows:
Therefore, to solve the the problem once for all, I feel that a direction should be issued to the District Collector concerned to decide the question
of the petitioner''s caste status following the guidelines contained in the writ appeal No. 241 of 1996 dated 8.3.1996. The petitioner shall apply to
the District Collector, Dharmapuri for the issuance of the community certificate within four weeks from today, notwithstanding the fact that there
was an application by the petitioner on 14.3.1983. After the receipt of the said application, the District Collector, Dharmapuri either himself or
through the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer shall conduct the enquiry after giving the petitioner an opportunity to appear before him and
produce documents, if any. In case, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducts the enquiry, after completion of the enquiry, a report shall be sent to
the District Collector, Dharmapuri furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner. On receipt of the report by the Revenue Divisional Officer or the
Sub Collector concerned, the District Collector shall give the petitioner another opportunity before finally deciding the question. After final decision
is taken by the District Collector, a copy of the same shall be sent to the respondents. If the decision of the District Collector is in her favour, she
should be reinstated with all backwages and consequential benefits from the date of termination and continuity of service etc. The writ petition is
ordered on the above terms. However, there will be no order as to costs. The District Collector, Dharmapuri is directed to conduct the enquiry
and complete the same as mentioned within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the application from the petitioner....
Thereafter, the District Collector conducted an enquiry and by the order dated 9.12.1988, he had found that the petitioner did not belong to
Kurumans community and accordingly, he has cancelled the community certificate issued to the petitioner. Challenging the said action of the District
Collector, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 18025 of 1999 and a learned single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 19.11.1999 has held that the
District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee alone had the jurisdiction to verify the community certificate as per the Government orders and
accordingly set aside the order of the District Collector and remitted the matter back to the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for passing
fresh orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter conducting enquiry, the second respondent Committee, by the impugned order
dated 1.8.2007, has held that the petitioner belongs to Kurumans community and that the community certificate obtained by her was genuine.
While the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 31246 of 2007, praying to direct the respondent Bank to reinstate her into service based on the said report
of the Committee, the employer-Bank has come forward to file W.P. No. 32249 of 2007 praying to quash the order of the committee. Since both
the matters are interconnected with each other, they both are heard in common and are being disposed of by this common order.
The admitted case on both sides is that the marriage between the parents of the petitioner is an inter-caste one; that the father of the petitioner
by name Mr. Munusamy belonged to ''Vellala Gounder'' community and her mother belonged to ''Kurumans'' community and the father of the
petitioner died when the petitioner was 1 = years old and thereafter her mother became a Teacher and brought her up. It seems since the mother
of the petitioner belong to Kurumans community, the petitioner has claimed the status of ''Kurumans'' and obtained the community certificate as
such, resulting in many litigations and her dismissal order.
Therefore, the question that requires to be decided by us is whether the second respondent Committee is right in arriving at the conclusion that
the petitioner belongs to ''kurumans'' community, which is admittedly the caste of her mother and not that of her father, being an inter-caste
marriage?
Law on the point of siblings of the inter-caste marriage is well settled now. Ours is a patriarchy society and siblings of the inter-caste marriage
are not an exception to this. In the case on hand, admittedly, the father of the petitioner belong to ''vellala gounder'' community and the mother of
the petitioner belong to ''Kurumans'' community, based on which alone she had claimed the status of Scheduled Tribe.
Straight answer to the case of the petitioner lies in the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Anjan Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Others, . In the said case also, the husband belonged to a forward class community and wife belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community and their
son claimed the communal status as that of the mother and claimed benefits under the Scheduled Tribe quota. The Honourable Apex Court has
held, in unequivocal terms, as follows:
The appellant is not entitled to get the Scheduled Tribe certificate.
The condition precedent for granting tribe certificate is that one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs. The offshoots of the wedlock of a
tribal woman married to a non-tribal husband - Forward Class (kayastha in the present case) cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status. The reason
being that such offshoot was brought up in the atmosphere of Forward Class and he is not subjected to any disability. However, the situation will
be different in a case where a tribal man married a non-tribal woman. In that case the offshoots of such wedlock would obviously attain the tribal
status.
The object of Articles 341, 342, 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4-A) is to provide preferential treatment for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
having regard to the economic and educational backwardness and other disabilities wherefrom they suffer. So also, considering the typical
characteristic of the tribal including a common name, a contiguous territory, a relatively uniform culture, simplistic way of life and a tradition of
common descent, the transplantation of the outsiders as members of the tribe or community may dilute their way of life apart from the fact that such
persons do not suffer any disabilities.
In this judgment, the appellant has referred to a circular dated 4.3.1975 issued by the government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on the
subject ""status of children belonging to the couple one of whom belongs to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes"" and particularly referred to the
portion ''when a Scheduled Tribe woman married a non-scheduled Tribe man, the children from such marriage may be treated as members of the
Scheduled Tribe community, if the marriage is accepted by the community and the children are treated as members of their own community. But,
the Honourable Apex Court has refused to give any weightage to the said circular on the ground that ''such circulars issued from time to time, not
being law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution, it would be of no assistance to the appellant on the face of the constitutional
provisions....''
This case of the Honourable Apex Court is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Following the above said judgment of the Honourable
Apex Court, it is to be held that the petitioner, a sibling of the inter-caste marriage cannot claim the benefits of a Scheduled Tribe, based on the
rule of matriarchy, which has been deprecated by the Honourable Apex Court in the above said judgment, since only the rule of patriarchy would
apply to such cases.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the second respondent Committee has erred in concluding that the petitioner belong to Scheduled
Tribe community. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the second respondent Committee.
For all the above reasons and discussions, W.P. No. 31246 of 2007 filed by the employee is dismissed and W.P. No. 32249 of 2007 filed by the
employer Bank is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 2 of 2007 is closed.