Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3101 (MAD)

M. Raja v. Chairman, B. A. B. L

2012-07-18

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to consider his representation, dated 10.7.2012 and to take into account the petitioner's undertaking and consider the admission of the petitioner to 5 years B.A.B.L. (Hons) course starting from the academic year 2012-2013 on condition that if the petitioner failed to submit the said community certificate within a period of three months, the petitioner's admission to the said course will stand automatically cancelled. 2. When the matter came up on 16.07.2012, this court directed Mr.T.D.Vasu, learned Standing Counsel for the University to take notice. Today when the matter came up, the learned counsel produced a communication sent by the Director addressed to the Registrar, dated 17.7.2012. In the communication, it was stated as follows : "It is submitted that Mr.Raja (Application No.H5120497) submitted his application for admission to 5 year B.A., B.L. (Hons.) Degree Course for the academic year 2012-2013 under ST category. On scrutiny of the application, it was found that the candidate failed to enclose all the certificates relating to his qualification, community, date of birth etc., This was duly intimated to the said candidate and he was also requested to bring the same immediately for verification. But the candidate did not respond to our call. However, as claimed by the candidate, he was considered under ST category and accordingly, intimation was sent to him with a request to produce all the necessary original certificates at the counselling on 05.07.2012 the date on which counselling was scheduled. Though the candidate attended the counselling, he failed to produce his community certificate obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Government of Tamil Nadu, evidencing that he belongs to ST community. Therefore his claim for selection under ST community could not be entertained." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's family belonged to Kattunayakan community. He had produced his father's community certificate as well as his brother M.Kannan, who also belonged to the same community. The petitioner's mother had applied for the community certificate for him and it was returned for rectification by the concerned authority on 17.5.2012 and that an enquiry is still pending. The petitioner is also willing to give an undertaking to produce the community certificate. The petitioner's mother had applied for the community certificate for him and it was returned for rectification by the concerned authority on 17.5.2012 and that an enquiry is still pending. The petitioner is also willing to give an undertaking to produce the community certificate. Therefore his undertaking to produce the certificate may be taken note of in view of the fact that he is the candidate selected from the Scheduled tribe quota and he should not miss the chance. Since the respondents have not considered the same, the petitioner has approached the court. 4. The facts are not in dispute in this writ petition. Prima facie the petitioner is entitled to get the community certificate. Even otherwise, since the petitioner is willing to give an undertaking his selection should not be cancelled only on the ground that he has not produced the certificate in the proper format. In an identical contention when the selection made for TNPSC was subject to verification of the community certificate and the process of verification was getting delayed as they were pending before various committees, a Full Bench of this court had answered the issues vide judgment in Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep. By its Secretary v. R.Manikandan and others reported in 2011 (5) CTC 1 . The Full Bench in paragraph 27(A) and (F) gave the following directions: "27.) In that view of the matter and for the reasons discussed, we answer the reference in the following manner:- A) The scrutiny of the genuineness of the Scheduled Caste certificates can be made only by District Level Vigilance Committee constituted by the State Government in terms of G.O. (2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.09.2007; (B) to (E) omitted F) In terms of paragraphs 10 and 15 of the directions of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case, which we have extracted, a candidate who is selected and appointed subject to verification of the community certificate, shall not claim any benefit of such selection and in case if the certificate is found to be false, the candidate should consequently lose his employment.” 5. In the light of the above, a direction will issue to the respondents to admit the petitioner for the B.A.B.L.(Hons.) course on the basis of the provisional selection made subject to the production of community certificate within a period of three months. In the light of the above, a direction will issue to the respondents to admit the petitioner for the B.A.B.L.(Hons.) course on the basis of the provisional selection made subject to the production of community certificate within a period of three months. In the undertaking, the petitioner should also state that in the event of his non production of the community certificate, his selection will stand cancelled automatically without any further notice. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.