V. Vallinayagam vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

The validity of the District Level Committee consisting of two members alone and the orders passed by them canceling the community certificate issued to various individuals, is the core issue in all these writ appeals. The batch of cases underwent a few hearings before us. During those hearings, we expressed our views in certain areas and requested the learned additional Advocate General to find the response from the Government. Today, the learned Additional Advocate General produced before us a ''copy of G.O. Ms. No 111 dated 6.7.2006. Under the said Government order, a District Level Committee consisting of three members, which would be in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme court in the case reported in Kum. Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others, 2. We applied our mind carefully to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel on either side. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances available in these batch of cases and to meet the ends of justice, we are inclined to hold that the following procedure shall be followed depending upon the order to be passed in each case. Once the order cancelling the community certificate is quashed on the ground that the committee which passed the order had no authority to pass, the dismissal order based on such cancellation of community certificate would automatically go, resulting in re-instatement of the concerned employee. However the concerned employee, on his reinstatement, would not be entitled to claim backwages for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and the same has to await the orders of the District Level Committee, clear that each employee reinstated would be entitled to be paid his salary on the last drawn scale basis from the date of his reinstatement till the District Level Committee decides the validity of the cancellation certificate.

It is then submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the State, on it''s own, by a letter, provided an appellant remedy to the state Level Committee and in view of a District Level Committee being constituted strictly in terms of Madhuri Patil''s case, there would be no need for an appellate remedy. In our considered opinion, if this suggestion is accepted, then against the District Level Committee''s order, there would be writ petition before this court directly. If the appellate remedy, as is in existence today, is continued in future also, then this court is of the opinion that to a large extent filing of writ petitions before this court may be reduced. Under these circumstances, we recommend to the State Government to provide an appellate remedy as they have already provided in respect of the orders passed earlier, and to prescribe a procedure for filing an appeal before the appellate authority and indicate as to who is the appellate authority.