Holding

The Act applies to all public‑service appointments of Kerala residents, including those in Central Government bodies, and its Scrutiny Committee may cancel any community certificate irrespective of the issuing authority.

Summary

L. Ushadevi, a resident of Kerala originally from Tamil Nadu, was appointed as Quality Supervisor in the Marine Products Export Development Authority on the basis of a community certificate issued by Tamil Nadu authorities stating she belonged to the Konda Reddi Scheduled Tribe. The employer later issued a show‑cause notice to cancel the certificate, initiated disciplinary proceedings and terminated her service, but the Kerala High Court set aside the termination. The appellant contended that the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 could cancel only certificates issued by Kerala authorities and applied only to State‑government employees, not to Central‑government employees. The Supreme Court held that the Act is a complete code covering all public‑service appointments (State or Central) of residents of Kerala and that its Scrutiny Committee has wide jurisdiction to examine any community certificate, irrespective of the issuing authority. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as having no merit and the matter was directed to the Committee for expeditious determination.

Issues considered

The Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 provides for cancellation of certificates only issued by Kerala authorities.
The Act applies solely to employees of the State Government and not to employees of the Central Government or its institutions.

Legislation cited

Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996s. 11, s. 2, s. 3, s. 30, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 8

Subjects

Scheduled TribeCommunity CertificateCancellationScrutiny CommitteeKerala Act 1996Public Service AppointmentCentral Government EmployeeJurisdictionCaste Certificate

Judgment

A L. USHADEVI
v. v
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

APRIL 27, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

Kera/a (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue
of Community Certificates Act, 1996-lncumbent resident of State of Kera/a y-
though originally belonged to Tamil Nadu-Appointed on basis of the Caste
c Certificate that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe-Cancellation of caste
certificate-Termination of service-/ncumbent's case that under the Act
certificates granted by State of Kera/a only could be cancelled-On appeal
held: Appointee within the purview of the Act being resident of Kera/a-
Since High Court directed the Government of India to determine whether
D appointee belonged to Kondareddy caste, no interference is called for-
Committee is directed to determine the same expeditious(v.

Konda Reddi is notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential order j <
for the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

E Forefathers of the appellant migrated to the State ofKerala but originally
belonged to the State of Tamil Nadu. Appellant was appointed in a statutory
body controlled by the Central Government on the basis of the caste certificate
that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe. She was issued show cause notice as to
why her certificate should not be cancelled. Disciplinary proceedings were
initiated and her services were terminated. However, the Division Benrh of
F
the High Court set aside the order. <

Appellants in other civil appeals were also similarly appointed in the
Central Government or public sector undertakings and their services were
also terminated but the tribunal set aside the order.
G
Appellants contended that the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes) Regulation oflssue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 contained
provisions for cancellation of certificates granted by the authorities of State
of Kerala and not the State of Tamil Nadu; and that the Act was applicable

H 916
L. USHA.DEVI v. U.0.1. 917
only to the employees of the State Government and no to the employees of the A
'J
Gonrnment of India or their institutions.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. It is not a case where the appellants were outside the purview
of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes) Regulation of Issue B
of Community Certificates Act, 1996. Appellants are residents of the State
of Kerala. It is difficult to comprehend as to how they obtained caste community
-\ certificate from the authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu. (Para 141 (921-EI

1.2 The jurisdiction of a Scrutiny Committee under the Act is of wide
amplitude. When a competent statutory authority invokes its furisdiction, it
c
cannot be understood as to why the appellants could not submit themselves to
the said jurisdiction. (Paras 15 and 161 (921-E-FI

Mis. Siemens Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2006) 13 SCALE
297, referred to. D
1.3. At one point of time, the controversy as to whether the jurisdiction

't to deal with such a matter, as the employees concerned were holding posts
under the Central Government might be relevant. The courts might have
directed the Central Government to hold an investigation in relation thereto.
But, once the legislature of a State enacts an Act which is a self contained E
code, it might not have been necessary for the court to refer the matter again
to the Central Government. (Para 18[ [922-D-EI

1.4. In the case of the appellant, the High Court directed the Government
of India to resolve the doubt as to whether the appellant belonged to the F
)• Kondareddy caste, but the same could not have been a ground for setting aside
the order of the State Government. As the high Court has directed
consideration of the matter afresh, nothing more is said in this behalf.
However, the Committee is directed to determine the question, as expeditiously
as possible keeping in view the fact that the matters are pending for a long
time. (Paras 19, 20 and 211 (922·E-GJ G

" Kumari Madh11ri Patil and Anr. v. Additional C,.o_mmissioner, Tribal
Development and Ors., (1994[ 6 SCC 241; State of Maharashtra and Ors. v.
Ravi Prakash Babula/sing Parmar and Anr., (2006) IO SCALE 575; (2007J
I SCC 80 and State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Sanjay K. Nimje, (2007) AIR
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A sew 1575. referred to. \'
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 255 of2004.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2002 of the High Court
of Kerala at Emakulam in O.P. No. 961 of 1993(M).
B WITH
C.A. Nos. 258. 256 & 257 of2004.

E. Padmanabhan, P.S. Narasimha and Nishe Rajen Shonker (for T.T.K. /-
Deepak & Co.) for the Appellant.
c
A. Sharan, ASG., Shilpa Singh, V.K. Verma, Amit A. Tiwari and B.V.
Balaram Das for the Respondents.
'
G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, Ashok Bhan, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, D.S.
Mahra, P. Parmeswaran, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, Rachna Gupta, A.V. Rangam
D and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Stllte of Kerala.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.8. SINHA, J. 1. These appeals involve interpretation and/or application
~ '
of the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes)
E Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (for short "the Act").

2. The fact of the matter is being noticed from Civil Appeal No. 258 of
2004.

3. Konda Reddi is notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential order
F for the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Appellant originally
hails from the State of Tamil Nadu. Her forefathers admittedly migrated to the
State of Kerala. She was appointed as Quality Supervisor in the Marine
Products Export Development Authority - Respondent No. 1 herein, which is
a statutory body controlled by the Central Government. Her appointment was
G made on the basis of the caste certificate granted in her favour. On or about
11.12.1980, a show cause notice was issued to her to show cause as to why
her certificate shall not be cancelled. Disciplinary proceedings were also
initiated against her. Her service was terminated but the said order was set
aside by a Division Bench of the High Court.

H 4. In other civil appeals also, relying on or on the basis of the purported
L. USHA.DEVI v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 919
certificates issued in their favour, the appellants obtained their appointments A
• in the Central Government or public sector undertakings. Notices were served
. on them to show cause as to why their appointments shall not be cancelled.
Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against them. Their services were
terminated but the same were set aside by the Tribunal.

5. The questions which have been raised before us by the learned B
counsel for the appellants are:

(i) The Act having contained provisions of cancellation of certificates
granted by the authorities of the State of Kerala only, they have
no jurisdiction to cancel a certificate granted by the State of Tamil
Na du. C
(ii) The Act applies only in regard to the employees of the State
Government and not to the employees of the Government of
India or their institutions.

6. The Act was enacted to provide for and regulate the issue of D
community certificates to member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in the State of Kerala. In terms of Article 342 of the Constitution of
India, a member of a tribe may be notified as Scheduled Tribe for a particular
State. 'Konda tribe' is admittedly notified as Scheduled Tribe inter a/ia in the
State of Kerala.
E
7. The legislatures of various States as also this Court had been noticing
the misuse or wrong use of such certificates. Such a question came up for
consideration before this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241 wherein inter
alia it was directed to constitute appropriate committees for determining the F
question a~ to whether a certificate had wrongly been obtained and the
)'
procedures were laid down for the purpose of cancellation thereof.

8. Scrutiny Committees thereafter came to be constituted by various
States by making enactments in that behalf. Consequences flowing from
cancellation of such certificates were also laid down. G
9. The question in regard to the power of such Committees recently
came up for consideration before this Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors.
v. Ravi Prakash Babula/sing Parmar & Anr., (2006) I 0 SCALE 575 : 2007 (I)
SCC 80] wherein referring to Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), it was held:
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A "The said decision, therefore, is also an authority for the
proposition that the Committee can go into the question as to whether
a caste certificate has rightly been issued or not. The authorities
concerned were also found to have some role to play in finding out
the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate."

B I0. This Court furthermore noticed that there are decisions and decisions
in regard to grant of actual relief. (See also State of Maharashtra & Ors. v.
Sanjay K. Nimje, (2007) AIR SCW 1575)

11. Although the learned counsel for the parties have cited certain
decisions in that behalf, we need not go into the said question at this stage,
c being not necessary at this stage.

D
12. The Act is a complete code by itself. 'Appointment in pi;blic service'
has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean a service or post under
the State or Central Government and includes appointment to any post of the
State or Central Government undertakings. A 'community certificate' has been
-
defined to mean the certificate issued by the competent authority in the
prescribed form indicating therein the caste or tribe to which he belongs, as
the case may be. Section 2(1) of the Act assigns the same meaning to
'Scheduled Castes' and 'Scheduled Tribes' which have respectively been
assigned to them in clause (24) and clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution
E of India.

13. Section 3 of the Act provides for a non-obstante clause. Section 4
provides for the manner in which an application for grant of community
certificate is required to be filed. Section 5 provides for issuance of a certificate
only by a competent authority. Section 6 provides for constitution of Screening
F Committee for verification of community certificate. Section 8 provides for
constitution of Scrutiny Committee for verification of community certificates
in the following terms:

"8. Constitution of Scrutiny Committee for verification of Community
Certificates: Government shall constitute a scrutiny committee for
G verification of community certificates. Any person belonging to
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or any appointing authority or
local body or heads of educational institutions may make an application
in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the scrutiny
committee for verification of Community Certificates."
H
L. USHADEVI v. U.0.1. [S.8. SINHA, J.] 921
Section 11 (I) of the Act reads as under: A
'I "11. Cancellation of false community certificate - (I) Where, before or
after the commencement of this Act, a person not belonging to any
of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes has obtained a false
community certificate to the effect that either himself or his children
belongs or belong to such Caste or the Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee B
may either suo motu or on a written complaint or report by any person
or authority, call for the records and enquire into the correctness of
such certificate and if it is of the opinion that the certificate was
obtained fraudulently, it shall, by order, cancel the certificate after
giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation, C
if any."

Section 30 provides for a transitional provision in the following terms:

"30. Transitional Provision - A community certificate issued by any
authority competent to issue the same under the relevant rules or
orders before the commencement of this Act, shall unless it is cancelled D
under the provisions of this Act, be valid and shall be deemed to have
been issued under the provisions of this Act."
,.
i 14. It is, therefore, not a case where the appellants herein were outside
the purview of the Act. Appellants are residents of the State of Kerala. It is
E
difficult to comprehend as to how they obtained caste community certificate
from the authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu.

15. The jurisdiction of a Scrutiny Committee under the Act is of wide
amplitude.
F
16. When a competent statutory authority invokes its jurisdiction, we
'y fail to understand as to why the appellants could not submit themselves to
the said jurisdiction.

17. In Mis. Siemens Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 13
SCALE 297, it is stated: G
"The question as to whether jurisdictional fact existed for issuance
/l of the said notice order passed by the respondent was in question in
the said writ petition.

Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary
-. H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C R.

A jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to
show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without
jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr., AIR (1987)
SC 943, Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr.,
[2004] 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty
B Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCALE 262, but the question herein has to
be considered from a different angle, viz., when a notice is issued with
pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an
event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear the
matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful
c purpose [See K.I. Shephard and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,
[ 1987] 4 SCC 431 : AIR (1988) SC 686]. It is evident in the instant case
that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so
both in the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause."

18. At one point of time, the controversy as to whether the jurisdiction
D to deal with such a matter, as the employees concerned were holding posts
under the Central Government, might be relevant. The courts might have
directed the Central Government to hold an investigation in relation thereto.
But, once the legislature of a State enacts an Act which is a self contained
code, it might not have been necessary for the court to refer the matter again \ '
E to the Central Government.
19. It is true that in the case of the appellant, the Kerala High Court by
an order dated 2~.07.1989 directed the Government of India to resolve the
doubt as to whether the appellant therein belonged to the Kondareddy caste,
but, in our opinion, the same could not have been a ground for setting aside
F the order of the State Government. We, however, do not wish to dwell
thereupon.

20. As the High Court has directed consideration of the matter afresh,
we do not intend to say any more in this behalf.

21. We would, however, direct the Committee, keeping in view the fact
G that the matters are pending for a long time, to determine the question, as
expeditiously as possible.

22. For the reasons aforementioned, these appeals are dismissed, being
devoid of any merit. No costs.
H N.J. Appeals dismissed. ··'