N. Balasubramani vs The Collector and The Director of Medical Education

T. Meenakumari, J.—The Writ Petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first Respondent in relation to his proceedings in Roc. No. 22735/86/H1 dated 4.10.1989 and quash the same.

It is stated in the affidavit that the Petitioner belongs to Kattunaicken Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. He belonged to Dindigul Quaid-e-Milath District. According to the Petitioner, the above mentioned community was entered in the school records. In the year 1982, the Petitioner applied for M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1982-83. As the application was submitted one day after the prescribed date, the application was not considered. In the year 1983-84, the Petitioner again applied for admission to M.B.B.S. Course. The candidates were required to submit a caste certificate in the prescribed proforma appended to the admission form at page 6. As per that form, the certificate of social status should be signed by an officer of the Revenue Department not lower in rank than a Deputy Tahsildar whether in independent charge or on other duty in the same scale of pay or by the Block Development Officer cum Panchayat Union Commissioner in the Block concerned. The Petitioner has obtained a certificate signed by the Special Tahsildar of Dindigul West. The said officer certified on 14.7.1983 that the Petitioner belonged to Kattunaicken Community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. The concerned officer in the Harijan Welfare Department has also issued an entitlement card on 14.10.1983 stating that the Petitioner belonged to Kattunaicken Community. The Petitioner was selected for the M.B.B.S. Course in the year 1983-84 and the Petitioner has undergone the course and he has completed the M.B.B.S. course in May 1989 and passed the final examination in August 1989. And he was undergoing the compulsory residential rotatory internelship, which is a House Surgency Training at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, attached to Madurai Medical College from 23.8.1989. On letter received from the Joint Director of Medical Education dated 20.2.1986, requesting the first Respondent to verify the genuineness of the Community Certificate issued to the Petitioner by the Revenue Authorities, the clerks of the Revenue Divisional Officer''s Office have obtained statements from the Petitioner''s father and he has produced some records including the school records to show that the Petitioner belonged to Kattunaicken Community. The first Respondent under the guise of oral enquiry, has called upon the Petitioner to produce the records to show that he belonged to Kattunaicken community. The Petitioner has produced various documents including the entitlement card, registered sale deed of the year 1978, Patta, certificate issued by the M.L.A., Athur Constituency, Community certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar dated 14.7.1983, Community certificate issued by the Block Development Officer dated 14.7.1982 and the Transfer Certificate issued by the Higher Secondary School, Pattiveeranpatti. The first Respondent, without considering the above records has come to the conclusion that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar was not valid and ultimately passed the impugned order stating that the community certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar dated 14.7.1983 and the Block Development Officer, Athur, dated 14.7.1982 are not correct and thereby cancelled the same. Aggrieved by the above order of the first Respondent dated 4.10.1989 passed in Roc. No. 22735/86/H1, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the name of the community has been endorsed in the school registers and the Special Tahsildar has issued the community certificate on 14.7.1983. The first Respondent has no right or jurisdiction to cancel the community certificate issued by a competent authority of the Revenue Department. It has also been argued that he has been given admission in the year 1983-84 and he has been allowed to continue the course upto 1989 and he has passed the examination and the authorities are not right in suddenly evoking a doubt about the genuineness of the caste certificate when he was doing the House surgeonship. It has also been argued that the Petitioner has submitted the application as per the requirement of the authorities in the prescribed form attached to the admission form. The contention of the counsel is that the enquiry was not properly conducted. They have failed to note that the certificate was issued by the competent authority and the Petitioner also relied on a sale deed dated 25.3.1977 which is a registered one to substantiate his claim that the Petitioner''s father''s community has been mentioned as one of Kattu Naicken Community. The same has been produced in this Court. The counsel has chosen to argue that the certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar was after conducting an enquiry by the Village Administrative Officer on 10.7.1983 and also the Revenue Inspector, Athur on 11.7.1983. Hence it has been argued that the Respondents should not have doubted the above certificate, that too after nearly a period of six years, as the same has been issued by a competent authority and hence the Respondents are estopped from raising any doubt over the genuineness of the certificate in the year 1989. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the certificate as required by the authorities has been issued by the competent authority after conducting due enquiry based on proper materials. Hence the authorities were not right in subjecting the Petitioner to repeated enquiries which amounted to harassment. It has also been argued that holding of successive enquiries is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. To substantiate his contentions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decisions in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. R.K. Ragala and another, , K. Suresh Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, and R. Kandasamy v. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust 1997 (III) CTC 36. The Apex Court in R. Kandasamy''s case 1997 (III) CTC 36 has held that the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is good and valid for all purposes so long as such certificate is not cancelled. The Supreme Court has also held that the authority cannot insist upon fresh community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer. In K. Suresh Babu''s case AIR 1996 Mad 396, this Court has held that the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar who happened to be a competent authority is good enough for purposes either of seeking admission or of seeking employment so long as it is in force and is not cancelled. In Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. R.K. Ragala and another, , a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a citizen is entitled to live with dignity and without being harassed by repeated enquiries and social status certificate declaring a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and enquiries conducted, not shown to be conducted invalidly, such person cannot be subjected to repeated enquiries which amounts to harassment.

The Government has filed a counter in this case and sufficient time has been given to the Government Advocate to produce the records in this matter for perusal by this Court. In spite of the telegrams issued by the Government Advocate, he expressed his inability to produce the records as the same were not received by him. In the counter it has been stated that the Block Development Officer and the Special Tahsildar have issued the community certificate to the Petitioner without any enquiry. On enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, it has been reported that the Petitioner did not belong to Kattunaicken Community. It has also been stated that the Village Administrative Officer while recommending the certtificate, has noted the school certificate, as evidence for the Petitioner''s community, as done in routine course. It has also been stated that no enquiry was conducted while issuing the original certificate. It has also been stated that the entitlement card issued by the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Madurai, might have been issued on the basis of the community certificate and it cannot be taken as a basis. It has been stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer when requested to conduct an enquiry has sent a verification report. On 7.4.1986, the Petitioner''s father appeared before the Head Assistant of the Revenue Divisional Officer''s office and produced the school certificates of his sons and daughters and requested to confirm that they belonged to Kattunaicken community, on the basis of the school records. The Petitioner seems to have appeared before the Collector, Dindigul Anna District on 21.8.1989. It has been stated that the sale deed has not been produced by the father before the concerned authorities. It has also been stated that at Paragraph 9 of the counter that the Special Tahsildar issued the community certificate without proper enquiry and hence it is liable to be cancelled.

On verification of the material appended to the Writ Petition, it could be seen that the community certificate dated 18.7.1983 issued by the Special Tahsildar showed the signature of the Village Administrative Officer, Athur and the Revenue Inspector, Athur. In such a case, it is very surprising to note that the Respondents have come to the conclusion that the Special Tahsildar has issued it in a routine course. The sale deed dated 25.3.1977 appended to the Writ Petition shows that the Petitioner''s father belonged to Kattunaicken community. It is clear from the oral English translation of the sale deed that the community of the Petitioner''s father is mentioned as Kattunaicken community. The Petitioner''s father also appeared before the concerned authorities and produced the school records which bear the endorsement that they belonged to Kattunaicken community. The contention of the Respondents that the Special Tahsildar has issued the certificate basing on the school records cannot be sustained as a reading of the above certificate did not contain the endorsement that it has been issued basing on the entries in the school records. On the contra, it has the signature of the Village Administrative Officer, Athur and the Revenue Inspector, Athur. In view of the above, it could be said that the certificate has been issued after conducting a proper enquiry by the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector. Moreover, the original records were not made available to this Court in spite of granting sufficient time. Reliance can also be made on the observations made by the Apex Court in R. Kandasamy''s case 1997 (III) CTC 36 to hold that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is a valid one. In this case also, as the certificate has been issued prior to 11.11.1989, it could be said that it is a valid certificate. It has also to be seen that the Petitioner appeared before the Collector on 21.8.1989 and gave oral evidence and produced nearly 7 documents to substantiate his case that he belonged to Kattunaicken Community. The first Respondent has observed in the impugned order that the Transfer Certificate cannot be made as a basis to show that the Petitioner belonged to Kattunaicken Community. It is also stated in the impugned order that he has approached the Special Tahsildar for getting community certificate and he has failed to approach the appropriate authority - the Taluk Tahsildar, Dindigul, who is competent to issue the community certificate. The Collector was also of the view that this is sufficient proof that he has approached the incompetent authorities to get a forged community certificate as though he belongs to Kattunaicken community. The above observation of the Collector is not sustainable as the Petitioner obtained the said certificate as presented is the admission from a Tahsildar not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar. A reading of the impugned order also shows that the first Respondent has chosen to pass the final orders without issuing a show cause notice to the Petitioner herein and he has chosen to pass orders only on the basis of the oral enquiries. The action of the first Respondent in not issuing the show cause notice before passing the final orders of cancellation of community certificate, itself shows that he has not followed the Principles of Natural Justice. The first Respondent has also utterly failed to make available the reports of the enquiry conducted by various officials to the Petitioner also shows that he has violated the Principles of Natural Justice before passing the order of cancellation. He has chosen to cancel the order without issuing any notice. A Division Bench of this Court in D. Illamaran v. Govt. of India 1996 Wri LR 482 has held that a duty is cast upon the authorities to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the incumbent, failing which, it has to be held that it is violative of Principles of Natural Justice. In view of the above, it could be said that the Respondents have utterly failed to follow the Principles of Natural Justice while passing the impugned order in Roc. No. 22735/86H1 dated 4.10.1989. Hence the impugned order is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 20332 of 1989 is closed.