Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
R. KANDASMY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MADRAS PORT TRUST.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/1997
BENCH:
A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant filed a write petition in the High Court
Of Madras Seeking a Mandamus to the Chief Engineer. Madras
Port Trust - respondent herein to accept the community
certificate of the appellant dated 10.3.1987, issued by thew
Tehsildar, Mambalam, for the purpose of his appointment as a
mazdoor in the Madras Port Trust . It appears that the
appellant was called for an interview for appointment to the
post of mazdoor by the respondent by the letter dated 19th
August, 1995 and subsequently was called to appear for an
interview on 17th November, 1995 together with all the
testimonials and certificates. The appellant appeared
before the respondent and produced the relevant documents
including the community Certificates issued by the
Tehsildar, Mambalam, Madras, dated 10.3.1987. That
certificate was not accepted by the Port Trust and on 20th
November, 1995, the respondent-Port trust required the
appellant to produce "latest community Certificates" from
the Revenue Divisional Officers. The request of the
appellant to accept the certificate issued by the Tehsildar
in 1987 and not to insist upon the production of a fresh
certificate from the Divisional Revenue Officers on or
before 30th December, 1995, his name would be left out of
consideration for appointment. The appellant at that stage
approached the High Court. A learned Single judge of the
High Court on 8th February, 1996, referred to G.O.M.S.NO.
2137 dated 11.11.89 to hold that the certificate required to
be produced was from the Revenue Divisional Officer and that
the certificate. The learned Single Judge Accordingly
dismissed the writ petition and declined to issue Mandamus ,
as prayed to.
A write Appeal was filed. That writ Appeal came to be
dismissed on 29th February, 1996 by the division Bench. It
is these two words orders which have been put in issue
before us in this appeal.
We have heard learned council for the parties and
perused the record. Paragraph 4 of the G.O.M.S.NO.2137
dated 11.11.89. reads thus:
"The Govt. directs that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
community certificates in respect
of all communities included in the
list of schedule Tribes, for the
purpose of appointments in public
services under central and state
Govts. Public Sector Undertakings,
quasi Govts. institutions, Banks
etc., hereafter, be issued only by
the Revenue Divisional Officers".
On a doubt being raised regarding the validity of
certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89, the
Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 3.4.1991
informed the collectors of various districts in Tamil Nadu
that "the permanent community certificates issued to
scheduled Tribes by the Tehsildars up 11.11.89 is valid".
This communication had been placed on record in the High
Court. From a combined reading of G.O.M.S.No.2137 dated
11.11.89 and letter of the Joint Secretary dated 3.4.1991,
(supra) it follows that whereas a community certificates
issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 are required to be
issued by the Revenue Divisional Officers, but the community
certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 are
valid certificates. In view of this position, it was not
proper for the respondent to have insisted upon a fresh
certificate to be produced by the appellant from the Revenue
Divisional Officers as admittedly the community certificates
produce by the appellant had been issued by thew Tehsildar
concerned in 1987, that is , prior to 11.11.89.
In our opinion the community Certificate issued to a
schedule Tribe candidate by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89
is a good and valid community certificates not cancelled.
The authorities cannot decline to take that into
consideration and insists upon a fresh community certificate
from the Revenue Divisional Officers.
The judgement of the High Court under the circumstances
cannot be sustained. They are set aside any by a Mandamus
we direct the respondent to take into consideration of the
appellant to the appointment.
We clarify that we have only dealt with the legal
aspect of the matter and have not pronounced upon the
genuineness an the correctness of the community certificate
for which if there is any doubt (though none appear to have
been raised in the High Court and none was projected us
either) the respondent shall have to hold as proper enquiry
but till that certificate is not cancelled, the certificate
shall be treated as a valid certificate issued by the
component authority.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.