After 43-Year Battle, Madras HC Upholds Finding Retired Port Trust Employee’s Konda Reddy ST Claim Was Not Genuine, Citing Conflicting Family Records

The petitioner claimed to belong to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe and relied on a community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mylapore, in 1979.

He entered Chennai Port Trust service in 1979, retired in 2015, and received only provisional pension while his community status remained under verification.

Earlier proceedings concerning verification had resulted in orders allowing the inquiry to proceed, and the State Level Scrutiny Committee ultimately held the certificate not genuine on 16 March 2022.

The petitioner challenged that decision, relying on old family documents and arguing, among other things, that the Anthropologist’s report was inadequate and the inquiry was belated.

The respondents relied on the vigilance materials and the petitioner’s failure to produce promised supporting documents despite opportunities.

The Court considered the jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the Committee’s decision and applied the principle that, in a community-certificate inquiry, the claimant bears the burden of establishing the claimed Scheduled Tribe status in the face of contrary vigilance material.

It relied on the Full Bench decision in R. Guruswamy v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee for the propositions that delay and retirement do not, by themselves, prevent verification, and that courts should not allow an ineligible claimant to retain benefits reserved for eligible persons.

It distinguished the Division Bench decision in The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust v. M. Nagaraj because the Anthropologist in the present case had conducted a spot inquiry.

No specific statutory provision governing the community inquiry was identified in the judgment.

The Court held that the Committee’s decision was not based solely on the Anthropologist’s report, and distinguished M. Nagaraj on the ground that a spot inquiry had been conducted in this case.

It considered the family and school records inconsistent: some recorded relatives as “Hindu Reddiyar” or “Hindu-Reddy,” while others referred to “Kondareddis”; it also found that the petitioner’s principal historical documents did not establish Scheduled Tribe status.

Weighing those materials against the vigilance report, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not discharged his burden of proof.

It rejected delay as a bar in light of R. Guruswamy and declined remittal, noting the history of the inquiry and the opportunities afforded to the petitioner.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.