AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioner in W.P. No. 289 of 2008 belongs to Veerambal village, Muthukulathur Taluk, Ramnad District. His
grand parents and forefathers belonged to Hindu Pallan community, which comes under the Scheduled Caste category under the Presidential
order. His parents Thiru.Ponnaiah and Smt.Thangammal originally belonged to Hindu Pallan community and they got converted to Christianity. He
was born on 06.03.1952 to Christian parents and hence he was a Christian by birth. He was named as Raju. In school records, his community
was shown as Christian Pallan community. He completed his graduation in American College and Post Graduation in Madurai Institute of Social
Works in 1978. Thereafter, he converted to Hinduism after undergoing certain ceremonies through Madurai Adheenam on 17.06.1979. On
conversion, his name was changed to Ramachandran. Necessary publication was also made in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated
18.07.1979. He applied for the community certificate and the Headquarters Tahsildar, Muthukulathur, the competent authority, issued him a
community certificate, dated 13.10.1980, after enquiry and verification, certifying that he belongs to Hindu Pallan community, which is a scheduled
caste. He was selected for appointment to the post of Clerk against the Scheduled Caste quota by the State Bank of India, who are the second
and third respondents in the writ petition. On 06.08.2004, the State Bank of India requested the District Collector to send them a report regarding
the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the petitioner.
The Two Member District Vigilance Committee of Ramnad District enquired into the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the
petitioner. The said committee passed an order on 25.03.2005 cancelling the certificate.
The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee against the order passed by the two member District Vigilance
Committee. The State Level Scrutiny Committee set aside the order of the two member committee and remanded back for fresh consideration, by
a three member District Vigilance committee as per G.O.Ms.Nos.111, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, dated 06.07.2005.
Accordingly, the first respondent, the Three Member Committee enquired into the matter.
Before the Committee, the petitioner has stated that he was Christian by birth and however he converted to Hinduism in 1979 and therefore, he
was correctly issued with the community certificate.
However, the first respondent in the writ petition passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2007 cancelling the community certificate based on
the Letter No. 81, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, dated 19.09.2000. Relying on the said letter, the first respondent held that the
persons who are Christians by birth, on conversion to Hinduism, could not be treated as Scheduled Caste and those persons are not entitled to the
benefits available to Scheduled Caste. The Bank passed an order dated 18.01.2007 stating that his appointment was void ab initio due to the
cancellation of his community certificate and that he was directed not to report duty from 19.01.2007.
The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Level Committee against the order of the District Level Committee and obtained the order of stay
on 13.02.2007. In the meantime, he filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 558 of 2007 against the said order dated 18.01.2007 of the Bank and
obtained an interim order of stay before this Court on 22.01.2007. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 21.08.2007 on the ground that
since the appeal is pending before the State Level Committee against the order of the District Level Committee, the Bank should have waited for
the outcome of the appeal.
The W.A. No. 693 of 2007 is filed by the Bank against the said order dated 21.08.2007 made in W.P. No. 558 of 2007.
After passing of the order in W.P. No. 558 of 2007 on 21.08.2007, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 108, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare
Department (V-2), Department, dated 12.09.2007 dispensing with the appellate remedy to State Level Committee, if the decision was made by
three Member Committee. The aforesaid Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 108 directed the aggrieved parties to initiate proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India before High Court against the order of the three Member District Level Vigilance Committee, if the appeals
were already preferred to the State Level Committee.
In these circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 289 of 2008 against the order dated 05.01.2007 of the first respondent. While admitting
the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay of the impugned order on 10.01.2008. However, the petitioner is not restored to duty.
Though notice was ordered in the interim stay petition in W.A. No. 693 of 2007 at the time of admission on 05.12.2007, interim stay was
granted only on 19.08.2008. Both the W.A. No. 693 of 2007 and W.P. No. 289 of 2008 were clubbed together and were listed for final hearing.
Thereafter, the petition to vacate the stay and another petition for direction to reinstate him were dismissed and the stay was made absolute on
13.10.2008 in W.A. No. 693 of 2007.
In the said circumstances, both W.A. No. 693 of 2007 and W.P. No. 289 of 2008 are heard together.
Heard Mr. S. Natarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition and respondent in writ appeal and Mr. Pala. Ramasamy,
learned Special Government Pleader for 1st respondent in Writ petition, Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
Bank in Writ Appeal and all respondents in writ petition.
The aforesaid narration of facts makes it clear that the decision in W.A. No. 693 of 2007 depends on the outcome of the W.P. No. 289 of
2008. Therefore, the crucial issue that has to be decided is whether the impugned order dated 05.01.2007 passed by the first respondent (District
Committee) in the writ petition could be sustained or not.
The first respondent, in the order dated 05.01.2007 mainly relied on the Letter No. 81, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, dated
19.09.2000 to cancel the community certificate issued to the petitioner.
An important development took place after passing of the impugned order dated 05.01.2007 by the first respondent. The Government Letter
No. 81, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, dated 19.09.2000 was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in Prof. I. Elangovan v.
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and Anr. reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 209. The
Government accepted the said decision and issued a fresh Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 1, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
dated 02.01.2009. As per this Government Order, the person who is a born Christian, on conversion to Hinduism, will be treated as a Scheduled
Caste, if his community accepted him as one belonging to Scheduled Caste. Further, in similar circumstances, three different Division Benches of
this Court in (i) 2007 W L.R.863 (R. Shankar v. The Registrar General, High Court Madras and Ors.), (ii) 2007 W L.R.917 (G. Sarath Raj v.
Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.) and (iii) 2009 W L.R. 287 (Selvi. M. Shyamala v. Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee and Ors.) quashed
the similar impugned order, cancelling the community certificate on the ground that the person converted from Christianity to Hinduism could not be
treated as Scheduled caste.
Realising this difficulty, the first respondent filed counter affidavit, nowhere mentioning the Government Letter No. 81, though the same was
mainly relied on by the first respondent to cancel the Scheduled Caste Community certificate issued to the petitioner. However, the averments of
the first respondent in the counter affidavit are that the children born to Christian parents, on conversion to Hinduism by those children, would not
be treated as Scheduled Caste. The following are the excerpts to that effect from the counter affidavit of the first respondent and in paragraph No.
9, the first respondent stated as follows:
His parents never reconverted from Christianity to Hinduism. The petitioner himself accepted his parents were belonged to Christian Pallan, which
is B.C. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is totally denied.
In Paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, the first respondent stated as follows:
The petitioner and his parents belong to Christian � Pallan by birth. His parents were never converted to Hinduism. So, he has no chance to re-
convert to Hinduism.
Further, the counter affidavit, while consciously avoiding any reference to Government Letter No. 81, which was relied on to cancel the community
certificate, refers to the order of the Hon''ble Apex Court dated 25.01.1996 in SLP No. 27571/95 to its conclusion that the children to born to
Christian parents, on conversion, would not be treated as Scheduled Caste. But, the fact is that the Government Letter No. 81, itself is based on
the said decision of the Apex Court, when no such proposition is laid down in the said decision as held by this Hon''ble Court in aforesaid Division
Bench decisions.
The first respondent has stated in Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that the community certificate was cancelled based on the Government
orders, without giving the details of the Government orders. In fact, it should be inferred that the reference to Government orders in Paragraph 12
of the counter affidavit is only to the Letter No. 81, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, dated 19.09.2000.
The Bank also filed counter affidavit admitting that the employer has no role at all to examine the correctness of the factual findings of the
District Level Vigilance Committee and was duty bound in law to merely act upon the ultimate decision of the District Level Vigilance Committee,
which was duly competent to enquire into and cancel the community certificate of the petitioner, though the Bank also stated that the petitioner on
conversion to Hinduism from Christianity, could not be treated as Scheduled Caste.
Apart from mainly relying on the Government Letter No. 81, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, dated 19.09.2000, the impugned
order dated 05.01.2007 of the first respondent cancelling the community certificate stated that since the wife of the petitioner is a Christian and the
name of his children are Christian names, his conversion to Hinduism was only to get employment under Scheduled Caste quota.
The conversion of the petitioner to Hinduism is not dependent upon the religion of his wife and naming of his children in Christian names and
the first respondent could not reject his conversion to Hinduism on this basis. He was not also cross examined by the committee on this aspect,
when he made a statement asserting that he converted to Hinduism and he is following Hinduism. In fact Para-10 of the counter affidavit of the first
respondent in the following words support the version of the petitioner.
Further, he stated that he has participated in his community social functions and ceremonies. Participating in social functions and attending
ceremonies are not at all material evidence to claim his community. These are human nature and habitual of every one.
Further, as per the counter affidavit, the first respondent does not dispute the intermingling of the petitioner with the Hindu Scheduled Caste.
The impugned order also stated that the report of the Village Administrative Officer of his native village stated that since the petitioner was
residing at that time at Aruppukkottai, he could not state as to which religion he was adhering to. Further, though there is a reference to a report of
the Tahsildar of Paramakudi, there is nothing about the content of the report in the impugned order.
In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 05.01.2007 of the first respondent cancelling the community certificate dated 13.10.1980
issued by the Head Quarters Tahsildar, Muthukulathur is liable to be quashed. Hence it is quashed. Since the order of the first respondent
cancelling the community certificate is quashed, the W.A. No. 693 of 2007 questioning the order in W.P. No. 558 of 2007 setting aside the order
dated 18.01.2007 of the State Bank of India denying employment to petitioner, fails.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the writ appeal is dismissed. The appellant Bank is directed to restore the respondent in writ
appeal in service with all benefits within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.