Vs. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust  INSC 681 (22 August 1997)
ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI
O R D
E R Leave granted.
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
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.
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:
Govt. directs that the 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
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".
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.
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.
authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insists upon a
fresh community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officers.
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.
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
appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.