Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2678 (MAD)

T. Nagappan v. The Collector, Coimbatore District

2008-07-28

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he is working as an Assistant in the Coimbatore District Revenue Unit. Even though he belongs to `Ambalakarar Community, it has been wrongly noted as ‘Muthuraja. On knowing the mistake, he had applied to the concerned Tahsildar, during the year 1992, requesting him to issue a proper Community Certificate. The Tahsildar had, in turn, directed the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, to issue the necessary certificate, after a detailed enquiry. Accordingly, a detailed enquiry was made by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Udumalpet and he had issued a Community Certificate with Certificate No.2356587, on 27. 92, stating that the petitioner belongs to ‘Ambalakarar Community, which is recognised as a Most Backward Class community. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Udumalpet, had made the necessary entries in the service register of the petitioner. However, since the Collector of Coimbatore District had not considered the petitioners community as a Most Backward Class Community, his name had not been included in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1994, under the M.B.C. quota. Whereas, his juniors had been included in the said panel under the said quota. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, dated 11. 95, challenging the said panel. Since the appeal had not been disposed of by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.1742 of 1996. Based on the order, dated 23. 96, passed by the Tribunal, the appeal had been disposed of by the proceedings of the Appellate Authority, dated 25. 96. The appeal had been rejected on the ground that the Community Certificate of the petitioner showing that the petitioner belonged to `Ambalakarar Community had been cancelled by the Sub-Collector, Pollachi, in his proceedings, dated 23. 96, and that the entries made in the Service Register of the petitioner, on 19. 92, had also been cancelled by the Sub-Collector, Pollachi. 3. It has also been stated that the second respondent in his proceedings Procs.7895/95/A4, dated 23. 96, had cancelled the Community Certificate of the petitioner bearing No.2356587, dated 27. 92, on the ground that the Tahsildar concerned had not produced the relevant file and that it was said to be missing. 92, had also been cancelled by the Sub-Collector, Pollachi. 3. It has also been stated that the second respondent in his proceedings Procs.7895/95/A4, dated 23. 96, had cancelled the Community Certificate of the petitioner bearing No.2356587, dated 27. 92, on the ground that the Tahsildar concerned had not produced the relevant file and that it was said to be missing. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4470 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.26394 of 2006. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner is working as an Assistant in the Coimbatore District Revenue Unit. The petitioner had entered the service in the year 1976. The petitioners Commuity was entered in his service register, on 111. 76 as `Muthuraja, which is a Backward Class Community. Subsequently, after a lapse of about 15 years, the petitioner had applied to the Tahsildar, Udumalpet, for alteration of the entry regarding his Community as `Ambalakarar Community by producing a copy of the Certificate No.2356587, dated 27. 92, issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Udumalpet. It has been further stated that the petitioner had wanted to alter the name of his Community in his service register as `Ambalakarar Community, since he could be considered as a person belonging to a Most Backward Class community under the 20% reservation, reserved for such persons in the list of Deputy Tahsildars. 5. It has been further stated that by G.O.Ms.No.125, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S), Department, dated 3. 89, it has been made clear that there is no need to consider any request from the Government servants for alteration of the Community entered in the service register at the time of their entry into service. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar had issued a fresh Community Certificate without conducting a detailed enquiry. While the petitioner had accepted that he had belonged to `Muthuraja Community till the year 1992, there is no good reason for him to request for a fresh Community Certificate claiming that he belongs to `Ambalakarar Community. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar had issued a fresh Community Certificate without conducting a detailed enquiry. While the petitioner had accepted that he had belonged to `Muthuraja Community till the year 1992, there is no good reason for him to request for a fresh Community Certificate claiming that he belongs to `Ambalakarar Community. It is only with the malafide intention of claiming seniority over the others in the appointment as Deputy Tahsildar etc., without waiting for his turn in the normal course, he had obtained the Community Certificate showing that he belongs to ‘Ambalakarar Community. Therefore, the revised false entries made by the Tahsildar, contrary to the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.125, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S), Department, dated 3. 89, has been cancelled by the Sub-Collector, Pollachi, on 23. 96. Further, disciplinary action had also been taken against the Tahsildar, who made the false entries in the service register of the petitioner and a punishment of `Censure had also been imposed on him by the competent authority. The false Community Certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, without verifying the entries already available in the service register of the petitioner, was also cancelled by the Sub-Collector, Pollachi, to rectify the mistake committed by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Udumalpet and Tahsildar, Udumalpet. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Community Certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Udumalpet, to the petitioner, on 27. 92 and the relevant entries made in the Service Register of the petitioner, showing that he belongs to to `Ambalakarar Community, had been cancelled by the second respondent without following the principles of natural justice as the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing before such cancellation was made. Therefore, the learned counsel had submitted that it would suffice if this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23. 96, without granting any further relief, as prayed for in the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had stated that the Community Certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Udumalpet, on 27. 92, showing the petitioner as belonging to `Ambalakarar Community, is a false certificate obtained by the petitioner without producing sufficient evidence to support his claim. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had stated that the Community Certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Udumalpet, on 27. 92, showing the petitioner as belonging to `Ambalakarar Community, is a false certificate obtained by the petitioner without producing sufficient evidence to support his claim. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar had issued the Certificate without conducting an enquiry and without following the instructions issued by the Governemnt in G.O.Ms.No.125, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S), Department, dated 3. 89. Therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23. 96, is in order. 8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is clear that the Community Certificate issued by the petitioner by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, in Certificate No.2356587, on 27. 92, had been cancelled by the Sub-Collector, Pollachi, in his proceedings, dated 23. 96, without issuing a notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. Consequently, the entries made in the Service Register of the petitioner, based on the Community Certificate, dated 27. 92, had also been cancelled by the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 23. 96, without hearing the petitioner. 9. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23. 96, is set aside. However, it is made clear that it is open to the first respondent, to conduct an enquiry, with regard to the community of the petitioner, if so advised, after providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs.