R. KANDASAMYversusTHE CHIEF ENGINEER, MADRAS PORT TRUST

A                                 R. KANDASAMY
                                        v.
             THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MADRAS PORT TRUST

                                  AUGUST 22, 1997

B             [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

          SociaZ. Status Certificate :

          Government of Tamil Nadu G.O.M.S. No. 2137 dated
C 11.11.1989-Community Cenificate to be issued only by Revenue Divisional
    Officer-Community Certificate issued by Tehsildar prior to
    11.11.1989-Held, is valid for all purposes so long as such a cenificate is not
    cancelled.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5935 of
D 1997.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 29.2.96 of the Madras High
    Court in W.A. No. 226 of 1996.

         Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, J.B. Ravi and M.A. Krishna Moorthy for
E   the Appellant.

          S. Balakrishnan and Subramanium Prasad for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F         Leave granted.

        The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Madras
  seeking a Mandamus to the Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust - respon-
  dent herein to accept the Community Certificate of the appellant dated
  10.3.1987, issued by the Tehsildar, Mambalam, for the purpose of his
G 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 he was called to appear for an interview on 17th November,
  1995 together with all the testimonials and certificates. The appellant
H appeared before the respondent and produced the relevant documents
                                     516
     R.KANDASAMYv. CHIEFENGINEERMADRASPORT1RUST                         517

including the Community Certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Mambalam, A
Madras, dated 10.3.1987. That certificate was not acceptable by the Port
Trust and on 20th November, 1995, the respondent-Port Trust required the
appellant to produce "latest original Community Certificate" from the
Revenue Divisional Officer. The request of the appellant to accept the
certificate issued by the Tehsildar in 1987 and not to insist upon the B
production of a fresh certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer was
turned down and the appellant was told that if he did not produce the
certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer on or before 30th Decem-
ber, 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. C
2137 dated 11.11.89 to hold that the certificate required to be produced
was from the Revenue Divisional Officer and that the certificate issued by
the Tehsildar was not a valid certificate. The karned Single Judge accord-
ingly dismissed the writ petition and declined to issue Mandamus, as
prayed for.                                                                D
      A Writ Appeal was filed. That Writ Appeal came to be dismissed on
29th February, 1996 by the Division Bench. It is these two orders which
have been put in issue before us in this appeal.

      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the E
record. Paragraph 4 of the G.O.M.S. No. 2137 dated 11.11.89 reads thus :

            "The Govt. directs that the Community Certificates in respect
        of all communities included in the list of Scheduled Tribes, for the
        purpose of appointments in public Services under Central and
        State Govts., Public Sector Undertakings, quasi Govt. institutions,    F
        Banks etc., shall hereafter, be issued only by the Revenue
        Divisional Officers."

      On a 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 G
Tamil Nadu that "the permanent Community Certificate issued to Scheduled
Tribes by Tehsildars up 11.11.89 is valid." This 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 Certificate after 11.11.89 is H
    518                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A required to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, but the Com-
    munity 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 ;tppellant
    from the Revenue Divisional Officer as admittedly the Community Certifi-
B   cate produced by the appellant had been issued by the Tehsildar concerned
    in 1987, that is, prior to 11.11.89.

          In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a Schedule Tribe
    candidate by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 is a good and valid Community
    Certificate for all purposes so long_ as such a certificate is not cancelled.
C   The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist
    upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer.

          The judgments of the High Court under the circumstances caqb.ot be
    sustained. They are set aside and by a Mandamus we direct the respondent
    to take into consideration the Community Certificate issued to the appel-
D   !ant by the Tehsildar which had already been produced before it for the
    purpose of consideration of the appellant to the appointment.

           We clarify that we have only dealt with the legal aspect of the matter
    and have not pronounced upon the genuineness and the correctness of the
    Community Certificate for which if there is any doubt (though none appear
E   to have been raised in the High Court and none was projected before us
    either) the respondent shall have to hold a proper enquiry but till that
    certificate is not cancelled, the certificate shall be treated as a valid
    certificate issued by the competent authority.

           The appeal is a!Jowed in the above terms. No. costs.
F
    R.P.                                                        Appeal allowed.