K.Rengaraju vs THE TAMIL NADU STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE-III

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 30.09.2026
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON :26.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.12685 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.12137 & 12138 of 2022
K.Rengaraju ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee – III,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. A.S.Mohan Ram,
Deputy Conservator of Forests /
Member Secretary (FAC),
State Level Scrutiny Committee-II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Chairman,
Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first
respondent’s impugned proceedings No.21240/CV-6/2017-19 dated
16.03.2022 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
for Mr.N.Naganathan
For Respondents : Mr.J.V.Sakthi Baalakrishnan
Government Advocate for R1
Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi for R3
No appearance for R2
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to call for the records
on the file of the first respondent relating to the impugned order dated
16.03.2022 and to quash the same.
2. By the impugned order, the State Level Scrutiny Committee
scrutinized the Scheduled Tribe status of the petitioner and held it to be not
genuine. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to the ‘Konda Reddy’
Scheduled Tribe. He was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk with the third
respondent, namely the Chennai Port Trust, with effect from 14.11.1979, and
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
his services were confirmed with effect from 25.02.1980. He was further
promoted to Upper Division Clerk in 1982, Senior Assistant in 1985, Assistant
Superintendent in 2002, and Office Superintendent in 2009. His services were
regularized in the post of Office Superintendent with effect from 08.07.2010.
At this stage, when his communal status was subjected to cloud and under
verification, his further promotions were denied. After completing 35 years of
service, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on
31.05.2015. Thereupon, the petitioner was paid only a provisional pension
from the date of his retirement.
4. The petitioner is a native of T.Kalatur village, formerly in Trichy
District and now in Perambalur District. His father worked as a Coolie. After
completing his school and college education, the petitioner shifted his
residence to Mylapore, Chennai. Based on the petitioner's community and after
due enquiry, the Tahsildar, Mylapore, vide certificate dated 18.05.1979, issued
a Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate. The petitioner was subsequently
appointed under the said quota.
5. While so, very belatedly, the Port Trust, the third respondent,
seems to have addressed a letter to the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, to
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
verify the veracity of the petitioner’s community status. The District Collector
conducted a discreet enquiry and passed an order on 19.02.1986. The petitioner
challenged the same in W.P.No.2707 of 1986. By an order dated 12.06.1991,
the said writ petition was allowed on the ground that since the certificate was
issued by the Tahsildar, Mylapore, it cannot be cancelled by the District
Collector, Tiruchirappalli. However, the District Collector, Chennai, once
again passed an order on 16.05.1988, against which the petitioner filed
W.P.No.6606 of 1988. The said writ petition was allowed on 20.03.1997 with a
direction to furnish the petitioner a copy of the report of the District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli, and to proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22906 of 2005 for a writ of
mandamus to forbear the Collector and the Chairman of the District Level
Vigilance Committee, Chennai, from verifying the petitioner's community. By
an order dated 08.04.2011, the said writ petition was dismissed. Subsequently,
the petitioner filed two writ petitions in W.P.No.31486 and 28441 of 2018. By
a common order dated 09.01.2019, the third respondent was directed to settle
the terminal benefits. The respondents 1 & 2 were, however, granted liberty to
approach the State Level Scrutiny Committee for verification of the communal
status with reference to the direction to settle the terminal benefits. The third
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
respondent preferred an appeal in W.A.No.988 of 2019, and it is submitted that
an interim order is operating in favour of the third respondent. Under the said
circumstances, the inquiry was taken up by the Tamil Nadu State Level
Scrutiny Committee, and the impugned order was passed on 16.03.2022.
7. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would
submit that in the instant case, the petitioner has ample proof to substantiate the
fact that he belongs to the ‘Konda Reddy’ Scheduled Tribe community. The
earliest document produced by the petitioner is dated 17.05.1915, which is the
horoscope of the petitioner's father written on a palm leaf, and the transcript of
which has been duly produced by the petitioner in support of his claim. On
03.06.1915, one Murugesh Mudaliar had written a letter to the petitioner's
grandfather, namely Arunachalam, categorically mentioning his caste as
‘Konda Reddy’. Further, the Community Certificate was granted by the
Tahsildar, Mylapore, as early as on 18.05.1979. The petitioner also relies upon
a family tree to demonstrate that he belongs to the ‘Konda Reddy’ Scheduled
Tribe.
8. Under the said circumstances, the finding of the State Level
Scrutiny Committee is incorrect in law merely because, in some of the school
5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
certificates, the community is loosely recorded as ‘Hindu Reddiar’, ‘Reddy’,
etc. It is now clarified that there is no separate caste enumerated in the State of
Tamil Nadu as ‘Reddiyar’, as different names are given to different castes.
‘Konda Reddy’ is classified as a Scheduled Tribe. In the instant case, the
Anthropologist gave a report based on general findings and common criteria.
9. On an identically worded Anthropologist's report, a Division
Bench of this Court in The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai and
another v. M.Nagaraj and other (W.A.No.1319 of 2019 & W.P.No.4335 of
2021) considered the very same criteria being mechanically mentioned and the
cryptic manner in which the Anthropologist gives a report has held that such
Anthropologist’s report is invalid. With reference to each of the criteria that is
to be followed, there must be a specific finding by the Anthropologist. The
same is not there in the instant case also, and therefore, the impugned order that
is ultimately based on the invalid Anthropologist's report, cannot survive. The
Anthropologist can make a fresh inquiry, and unless findings are made with
reference to each of the parameters, the same cannot be relied upon. The
petitioner also places reliance upon the affidavit filed by his relative
V.Krishnaswamy in the context of elections. The said affidavit filed as early as
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
on 17.09.1996 was completely overlooked by the State Level Scrutiny
Committee.
10. The learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in K.J.Arunmozhi v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny
Committee and others (W.P.No.6954 of 2022), wherein the Division Bench, in
paragraph No.24, found that a perusal of the detailed Anthropologists report
reveals that the ‘Konda Reddy’ community was prevalent in Mettur, Salem,
Trichy and Uppliyapuram areas of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the same would also
lend credence to the claim of the petitioner. Thus, when the oldest document
belonging to the petitioner's grandfather and the later document relating to the
petitioner's paternal uncle are not considered merely because some doubtful
school records were obtained, the same cannot form the sole basis for
determining that the petitioner is not a Scheduled Tribe.
11. Per contra, Mr.J.V.Sakthi Baalakrishnan, learned Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.S.Haja Mohideen
Gisthi, by relying on the counter affidavit would submit that despite several
opportunities granted by the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 27.11.2020,
29.01.2021, 15.11.2021, and 10.01.2022, the petitioner attended the inquiry
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
only once, on 15.11.2021. On that date, he requested the State Level
Committee to grant an extension of one month to submit land records and other
documents to substantiate his claim. Again on 10.01.2022, he further requested
two month time on medical grounds. When the time was subsequently granted
on 10.03.2022, he appeared before the Committee but failed to produce any
documents as undertaken. Thereafter, after considering the vigilance report and
all the documents on record, and having afforded sufficient opportunity, the
impugned order was passed on 16.03.2022, holding that the Scheduled Tribe
community certificate obtained by the petitioner is not genuine. Therefore, they
would submit that there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the
impugned order.
12. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
13. Firstly, an argument has been raised against the Anthropologist's
report, stating that in the operative portion, he did not give any detailed reasons
and that he should be mandated to give item-wise details. However, on a
perusal of the Division Bench judgment relied upon by the petitioner in
W.A.No.1319 of 2019 and W.P.No.4335 of 2021, it is evident from paragraph
8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
No.9 that the Anthropologist in that case had failed to conduct any spot inquiry,
which is not the fact in the instant case. Secondly, it can be seen that in this
case, while the procedure of the State Level Committee is to go by the District
Vigilance report and if the report is against the petitioner, it is for the petitioner
to show cause and produce such proof so as to satisfy the committee that he
belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community. In the instant case, the decision
was not taken by the Vigilance Committee solely on the basis of the
Anthropologist's report.
14. A review of the records reveals that in respect of
K.Sathiyamoorthy and K.Annagamu, who are the brother and sister of the
petitioner herein, the Headmaster of Panchayat Union Primary School,
T.Kalatur, recorded their religion and caste as ‘Hindu Reddiyar’. In respect of
V.Arunadevi, V.Subha, and V.Prabha, who are the nieces of the petitioner, the
very same school, recorded their caste as ‘Hindu-Kondareddis’. However, in
respect of one S.Deepa, who is another niece of the petitioner, the religion and
caste are recorded as Hindu-Reddy. The Headmaster, Government High
School, T.Kalathur, in respect of the said Deepa, recorded the caste as ‘Hindu
-Reddy’. In the service register of one of the nieces of the petitioner, namely
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
V.Arunadevi, her caste and religion are mentioned as ‘Hindu- Reddiyar’ and
recorded as a Forward Caste.
15. Thus, it can be seen that, with reference to some Telugu-speaking
people, if they are termed ‘Reddiyar’, they generally treated as a forward and
affluent community with no social stigma or suffering. In fact, in this casteist
social order, they are on a higher pedestal within the social hierarchy, and in
turn, they treat other people on a lower hierarchy. However, some of the castes
are in OBC, and Konda Reddy is mentioned as a Scheduled Tribe. Now,
without any detailed reference of being a scheduled tribe, some of the members
in these families are casually mentioned as ‘Konda Reddy’ in some of the
documents. Thus, without any social suffering or social stigma or any triat as
being a member of a tribal community, while enjoying all the benefits of a
hierachial casteist social order and treating the other people inferior, merely
because their caste name is mentioned as ‘Konda Reddy’ in some documents,
they claimed as if they are Scheduled Tribe ‘Konda Reddy’.
16. As per the Anthropologist's report, the Scheduled Tribe Konda
Reddy are supposed to live in some southern parts of Andhra Pradesh and the
northern parts of Tamil Nadu, including some of the interior districts of Tamil
10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
Nadu. They originally settled on riverbanks, and their occupation was catching
fish and living on it. Thus, in some cases taking undue advantage and in some
cases innocuously because the name ‘Konda Reddy’ was used, several higher
caste persons who are generally known as ‘Reddiyar’ claimed benefit as a
Scheduled Tribe.
17. It is under this context, with reference to ‘Konda Reddy’, strict
scrutiny is undertaken by the State Level Committee. Now, while the school
certificates are either way that is referring both as Scheduled Tribe and also as
Forward caste, the petitioner relies only on three documents. Of these three,
two documents viz., one is a horoscope written in the year 1915, and the other
is a letter written to the petitioner's grandfather. The very document produced
by the petitioner in support normally does not relate to Scheduled Tribes.
Especially in the year 1915, it was more a habit of the caste Hindus to write
horoscopes, and it cannot be considered to be a trait of the Scheduled Tribes.
The second document a letter written demonstrates the higher status of the
petitoner’s grandfather. Thus, even the documents relied upon by the petitioner
in his support only show that the petitioner is not a Scheduled Tribe. It is one
thing whether the petitioner intentionally misrepresented or unknowingly
received the benefit. However, upon weighing the documents on record, and
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
when the burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that he belongs to a
Scheduled Tribe, it cannot be said that he has discharged the same in the teeth
of the Vigilance Report and the field inquiry held.
18. In this regard, the primary grounds originally raised in this writ
petition are that the enquiry was delayed and that the petitioner has
superannuated, and therefore it should not be resorted. The question that the
petitioner's community certificate is anterior to the year 1996 and that the
petitioner has already superannuated from service and that the enquiry should
not be belatedly undertaken are all now settled by a Full Bench of this Court in
R.Guruswamy v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee
(W.P.Nos.23827 of 2025 etc., batch) whereby all the questions have been
answered against the petitioner.
19. The Hon’ble Full Bench has also now made it clear as to the
manner in which the Courts have to consider these issues. Ineligible persons
claiming the relief are held akin to allowing the persons who committed theft to
retain the stolen articles. It is held to be a constitutional fraud, thereby
depriving yet another lawful person who is entitled to the benefit. Under the
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
said circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with
reference to delay cannot be countenanced.
20. Further, any argument praying for remand of the matter defeats
the object and that question whether the petitioner belongs to the ‘Konda
Reddy Scheduled Tribe’, has to be considered by this Court itself. It must be
seen that in this case, the petitioner obtained the community certificate on
18.05.1979, and immediately thereafter secured an appointment and the
verification process commenced. The first cancellation order was passed on
16.05.1988, which the petitioner challenged in W.P.No.6606 of 1988, resulting
in the matter being remanded back to provide an opportunity to furnish copies.
The second round was initiated by the petitioner by way of a mandamus,
forbearing the authorities in W.P.No.22906 of 2005, which was ultimately
dismissed. When orders were passed once again, the petitioner challenged the
same by way of W.P.Nos.31486 & 28441 of 2018 and also prayed for
settlement of terminal benefits. The said writ petitions were partly allowed,
with a direction to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to consider and take up
the inquiry on a day-to-day basis and complete the same.
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
21. Thus, it can be seen that from the year 1983 to 2026, for 43 years,
the matter has been dragged on. Therefore, this Court has considered the issue
on merits without accepting the submissions made by Mr.L.Chandrakumar,
learned counsel for the petitioner to remand the matter once again on technical
pleas. In the instant case, in view of the overwhelming evidence against the
petitioner and the documents submitted by the petitioner himself indicate that
he is unlikely to be a Scheduled Tribe suffering the social stigma attached to
the members of the Scheduled Tribe Community. First, in community
certificate matters, it can be seen that when the onus is on the petitioner to
satify that he belongs to the community. In this case, the respondents have
collected overwhelming materials contradicting the petitioner’s claim. Second,
inspite of remands and oppurtunity, the petitioner will repeatedly only
repeatedly plead for opportunity, while in the every oppurtunity being granted
for more than the past 40 years, he will only plead for time or will not appear
before the authority during the enquiry. Third, and more importantly, while on
one hand being an affluent member of the society, the petitioner also enjoyed
the benefit reserved to the marginalized and downtrodden tribes, without
keeping in mind a suffering Scheduled Tribe deserving the oppurtunity being
kept away from the mainstream development and being continued in their
habitat. This can no longer be permitted.
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
22. In the result, finding no merit, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26.10.2026
vji
Neutral citation : Yes
To
1. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee – III,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Deputy Conservator of Forests /
Member Secretary (FAC),
State Level Scrutiny Committee-II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Chairman,
Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )

W.P.No.12685 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
vji
Pre-Delivery Order made in
W.P.No.12685 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.12137 & 12138 of 2022
26.10.2026
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:58 pm )