WP/1974/1998 of SAROJA Vs FOOD CORPN OF INDIA on 5 December 2002

1. The Senior Regional Manager (E.I.)Food Corporation of India5/54 Greams RoadChennai 62.The CollectorTirunelveli .. Respondents ( R 2 impleaded as per orderof Court dated 31.10.2002by PKMJ)

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.

!For Petitioner : Mr.P.Peppin Fernando

^For Respondent-1: Mr.P.D.Audikesavanfor P.A.DeivasigamaniAssociates For Respondent-2: Mrs. N.G.KalaiselviSpl.G.P.

:J U D G M E N TOn the basis of community certificate dated 5.10.82, issued bythe Tahsildar, Palayamkottai, the petitioner had applied for employment underthe Food Corporation of India, the second respondent herein. The petitionerwas in the waiting list. Subsequently, the petitioner was given offer to joinservice subject to production of community certificate from the Collector.The respondent No.1 also wrote to the Collector, Tirunelveli in this matter,but the Collector has not given any reply. While the matter stood thus, thepetitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order passed by thefirst respondent seeking for clarification from the Collector regardingcommunity status and for a further direction to the first respondent to

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the community certificate had already been issued, the respondent No.1should not have insisted upon production of another community certificate.This submission has been resisted by the learned counsel for the respondentNo.1.

3. In J.T. 1997(7) SC 660 (R. KANDASAMY v. THE CHIEF

ENGINEER, MADRAS PORT TRUST) it was observed as follows :-“ . . . 5. In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to aScheduled Tribe candidate by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 is a good andvalid Community Certificate for all purpose so long as such a certificate isnot cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into considerationand insist upon a fresh community certificate from the Revenue DivisionalOfficer.

6. The judgments of the High Court under the circumstances cannot be sustained. They are set aside and by a Mandamus we direct the respondent totake into consideration the Community Certificate issued to the appellant bythe Tehsildar which had already been produced before it for the purpose ofconsideration of the appellant to the appointment.

7. We clarify that we have only dealt with the legal aspect of the matter and have not pronounced upon the genuineness for which if there is anydoubt (though none appear to have been raised in the High Court and none wasprojected before us either) the respondent shall have o hold a proper enquirybut till that certificate is not cancelled, the certificate shall be treatedas a valid certificate issued by the competent authority.”

4. In A.I.R. 1996 Madras 396 (K. SURESH BABU v. STATE OF

TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS) while holding that community certificate granted by theappropriate authority, namely the Tahsildar, prior to 11.11.1989 are goodenough for all the concerned authorities to take them into consideration forthe purpose of admission into educational institution or appointment in apublic service, it was observed that it would be open to the competentauthority to enquire into and cancel the community certificate if suchcertificate was not genuine or valid.

5. In 2002 WLR 866 (N. THAYANANDAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,CHENNAI AND OTHERS), I had the occasion to dealt with a similar matter whileconsidering the question of admission into educational institution.

It was observed :

“ . . . Law is well settled that until such community certificate

Issues

issued by the competent authority is cancelled in accordance with law, suchcommunity certificate is to be acted upon and it is not open to be ignore inany collateral proceeding or by any authority including the State. . . .”

After referring a Division Bench decision reported in 2002 WLR 825

(N.S. ZIAUDDEEN vs. S. ASHOK KUMAR, PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND 3 OTHERS)

it was further observed

“ . . . What was observed by the Division Bench in Quo Warrantoproceedings in the High Courts is in fact applicable with more vigour inrespect of other proceedings such as matters relating to admission orappointment. . .”

6. Learned counsel appearing for Food Corporation of India, however, placed strong reliance upon the decision reported in A.I.R. 1995 SC94 (KUMARI MADHURI PATIL AND ANOTHER v. ADDL. COMMISSIONER, TRIBALDEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS) and submitted that an intending employer has theright, nay, an obligation to verify the genuineness of the communitycertificate before giving employment to a person and in the present case, therespondent Corporation has only followed the ratio of the aforesaid decisionand has called upon the petitioner to produce a fresh community certificatefrom the appropriate authority.

7. It is no doubt true that the aforesaid decision prescribes certain general principles relating to the manner of enquiry into validity ofcommunity certificate, but it cannot be said that the aforesaid decision haslaid down an inexorable principle to the effect that in no case, the communitycertificate granted by a competent authority can be relied upon by theappointing authority until such community certificate has been “revalidated”by the scrutiny committee. Moreover, the subsequent decision of the SupremeCourt in J.T. 1998 (7) SC 660 (cited supra) which specifically relates toquestion of appointment on the basis of the community certificate without anyfresh verification is applicable to the present case. In the latter case theSupreme Court specifically reversed the decision of the learned single Judgeof this Court as confirmed in appeal wherein it had been held that theappointing authority was justified in calling upon the candidate to producefresh valid community certificate. Since the latter Supreme Court decision isdirectly on the point, the general observations made in the earlier SupremeCourt decision need not be applied in preference to the subsequent decision,which is specifically applicable to the facts of the present case.8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowedand the respondent Corporation is directed to give appointment to thepetitioner within a period of one month from the date of communication of thepresent order. However, since the question of validity of certificate hasalready been raised by the first respondent, it is directed that the mattershall be considered by the appropriate State Level Committee in accordancewith law within a period of six months from the date of communication of theorder. If ultimately the community certificate is found to be invalid by theappropriate State Level Committee, it would be open to the employer to cancelthe order of appointment and even to recover the amount paid to thepetitioner. No costs.

05-12-2002

Index: YesInternet: Yesdpk

1. The Senior Regional Manager (E.I.)Food corporation of India5/54 Greams RoadChennai 6

2. The CollectorTirunelveli