WP/13962/1999 of R.USHARANI Vs THE DT. COLLECTOR on 31 December 2003

:J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondentsforbearing them from conducting a fresh enquiry relating to the communitystatus of the petitioner in W.P.No.13962 of 1999. In W.P.No.23616 of 2001,the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to give promotion

2. It is claimed by the petitioner that she belonged to Kattunayakan community which comes under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)Order, 1950. On that basis the petitioner was appointed as clerk-cumtypistunder the respondent bank. At that time, she had produced the communitycertificate dated 7.8.1977 issued by the Tahsildar. The petitioner claimsthat she was again called upon to produce another community certificate andaccordingly she obtained another community certificate dated 17.6.1989 fromthe Tahsildar, Kodavasal, which was produced before the respondent bank. Thepetitioner claims that due to frivolous complaints sent through variouspersons and organisations having no connection in the matter, an enquiry wascommenced in the year 1998. However, it is submitted that after enquiry atthe level of the Tahsildar and the level of the Revenue Divisional Officer, afavourable report dated 3.5.1999 has been submitted to the bank and yet theenquiry has been re-opened. The petitioner claims that such a belated enquiryis not contemplated, particularly at the instance of the persons who have nolocus standi and in view of the favourable report, there is no necessity tohold any further enquiry. The petitioner also claims that merely becausethere has been subsequent suspicion regarding the community certificate, whichhad been issued in favour of the petitioner long back, the respondent bank haswithheld the service benefits such as promotion, confirmation, etc..

3. Initially, W.P.No.23616 of 2001 has been disposed of ex-parte in the absence of third respondent bank, but subsequently, such orderhas been recalled. The third respondent respondent bank has filed a counterand the matter has been heard afresh.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the bank it has been pointed out that earlier the petitioner was called upon to producethe community certificate which she had produced at the time of employment forthe purpose of verification. However, the petitioner instead of producingsuch a certificate, obtained a fresh certificate from a different Tahsildarand produced the same. It is contended that there is no embargo for holdingany enquiry relating to the community status of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in view of the favourable report submitted by the Revenue authorities,which has been brought to the notice of the bank, there is no necessity tohold any further enquiry, as such enquiry at the behest of the persons havingno locus standi has the tendency to cause unnecessary hardship and harassmentto the petitioner. It has been further submitted that because of the pendencyof so called enquiry, the petitioner’s case for promotion and other benefitsare not being considered even though she is otherwise eligible.

6. The procedure relating to verification of the community

certificate and cancellation of the same has been dealt with by the SupremeCourt in A.I.R. 1995 SC 94 (MADHURI PATIL v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FORTRIBAL DEVELOPMENT). In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reportedin 1997(7) SCC 505 (R. KANDASAMY v. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MADRAS PORT TRUST), it has been observed that so long as the community certificate is notcancelled in the manner known to law, such a community certificate issued bythe appropriate authorities had to be given effect to. However, it has beenobserved that there is no bar for verification of the community certificate.

7. Most of the relevant decisions on the point have been noticed by Justice K. Sampath in W.P.No.42620 of 2002 disposed of on13.3.2003. In the said decision, it has been observed that while there is nobar to proceed with any enquiry regarding validity of the communitycertificate, mere pendency of such an enquiry is not a ground to deprive theemployee of the benefits. In other words, so long as the communitycertificate is not cancelled in accordance with law, an employee has the rightto get necessary benefits on the basis of such community certificate which maybe however subject to the ultimate result in the enquiry.

8. In the light of the aforesaid decision, the grievance of the petitioner is to be examined. The prime contention of the petitioner isto the effect that because of the pendency of the so called enquiry, thepetitioner’s name is not being considered for promotion. In view of thedecision of the Supreme Court in 1997(7) SCC 505 (cited supra) and thesubsequent unreported decision, there cannot be any doubt that until thecommunity certificate is cancelled in accordance with law, if an employee isentitled to any benefit on the basis of such community certificate, he cannotbe deprived of such benefit merely on the pretext that some enquiry ispending. In other words, if the present petitioner is otherwise eligible andentitled to any promotion, she should not be deprived of the same merelybecause of some enquiry is pending.

9. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that a direction should be issued forbearing therespondents from continuing with the enquiry cannot be accepted in the form inwhich it has been made. It is of course true that the petitioner had producedcertificates from time to time and there has been some correspondence.However, the validity of the community certificate has not been formallydecided in any proceedings.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

it would not be appropriate to issue a positive direction forbearing therespondents from continuing with the enquiry. On the other hand, keeping inview the decisions of the Supreme Court, it would be more appropriate to givea direction that the question of validity of the community certificate shouldbe considered by the appropriate Three Members Committee constituted inaccordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1995 SC 94 (citedsupra). It goes without saying that such appropriate Three Members Committee,as contemplated under the Supreme Court decision, should deal with the matterin accordance with law by giving adequate opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner and such proceeding should be disposed of as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the relevant records. The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to place all therelevant papers before the appropriate Three Members Scrutiny Committee forthe aforesaid purpose.

11. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, thewrit petitions are disposed of. No costs.

dpk

To

1. The District Collector,Tiruvarur.2. The District Adi DravidarWelfare Officer,Tiruvarur,Tiruvarur District.

3. The Bank of Baroda,rep. by its AssistantGeneral Manager,Regional Office,No.82, Bank Road, Third Floor,Coimbatore 641 018.