Madras High Court
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that the genuineness of a community certificate can be examined even after a government employee has retired, ruling that there is “no legal bar” to verifying a certificate obtained before 1995.
The court dismissed two petitions filed by A Jegannathan, a former Chennai Port Trust employee, who had challenged the State Level Scrutiny Committee’s decision that he did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community claimed by him. He had also sought release of his full pension and other retirement benefits.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, who had reserved orders on August 31, pronounced the judgment on September 16. The 28-page order dealt with both petitions together as they arose from the same dispute.
Jegannathan had approached the High Court seeking directions to the Chairman, Madras Port Trust, and its Secretary and Traffic Manager to sanction his full pension, including commutation, gratuity, leave salary and other terminal benefits, along with 12 per cent interest. He had sought these benefits without waiting for verification of his community certificate by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
In his second petition, he sought a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to Proceedings No. 4376/CV-5/2018 dated August 19, 2021, and quash the proceedings.
According to the judgment, the petitioner claimed to belong to the Hindu Urali tribe, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in Tamil Nadu. He was issued a community certificate on July 31, 1980, and subsequently appointed as a Mazdoor at the Chennai Port Trust.
He was promoted to Assistant Shed Master in 1983, Shed Master in 1984 and Section Superintendent in 2006. After completing 33 years of service, he reached the age of superannuation on January 31, 2013.
However, his retirement benefits were not released in full because proceedings concerning verification of his community status were pending. He was instead granted only a provisional pension, while his full pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits remained withheld.
The petitioner argued that the community verification proceedings, initiated nearly four decades after his appointment, were legally unsustainable.
He relied on G.O.(2D) No.108 dated September 12, 2007, and G.O. No.106 dated October 15, 2012, contending that community verification was required to be undertaken at the time of appointment.
He further relied on directives issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes in December 2020, arguing that only community certificates of persons who entered government service after 1995 were required to be verified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
Since he had been appointed in 1992, the petitioner contended that his community certificate should not have been subjected to scrutiny decades later.
The High Court, however, did not accept the argument.
The judgment noted that the petitioner did not appear before the State Level Scrutiny Committee on January 27, 2021.
The committee subsequently examined the documentary and other material available on record and concluded that Jegannathan belonged to the Urali Gounder community and not the Urali Scheduled Tribe.
The committee further concluded that the community certificate produced by him was bogus and had been obtained fraudulently with the intention of securing constitutional benefits meant for genuine Scheduled Tribe members.
It also held that the community status claimed by the petitioner was not genuine and opposed the relief sought in the High Court.
The judge noted that the petitioner had been given opportunities at various stages of the proceedings. The court observed that although the burden was on the petitioner to establish his claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, the material before the committee included what the court described as “overwhelming evidence” against his claim.
The judgment specifically referred to the petitioner’s educational records.
Jegannathan was born on January 15, 1955, and was admitted to Swami Vivekanantha Vidhyalayam Higher Secondary School at Vairichettipalayam in Thuraiyur taluk in Class IX under Admission No. 3898.
His school records described his community as Urali Gounder, rather than the Scheduled Tribe claimed in his community certificate. The court noted that even the description in the school records was Hindu Urali Gounder.
The records concerning his relatives were also considered. According to the judgment, the community certificates of his relatives identified them as belonging to the Urali Gounder community.
An anthropology expert’s report was also placed before the committee and, according to the High Court, categorically indicated that the petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community claimed by him.
The High Court rejected the contention that the passage of several decades or the petitioner’s retirement prevented the authorities from examining the authenticity of the certificate.
The court held that there was no legal bar to verification of the genuineness of a community certificate obtained before 1995, and that such scrutiny could be undertaken even at a later stage.
The judgment also criticised what it found to be a prolonged pattern of non-cooperation with the verification process.
According to the court, from 1985 onwards, the petitioner had adopted a strategy of seeking adjournments on various grounds, avoiding appearances before authorities conducting verification and thereby prolonging the proceedings while continuing to enjoy the benefits attached to the claimed community status.
The judge observed that this would have the consequence of depriving a genuine Scheduled Tribe candidate of constitutional benefits intended for members of the community.
On this basis, the court held that the findings and conclusions reached by the State Level Scrutiny Committee could not be interfered with.
The Madras High Court also referred to a Supreme Court ruling concerning claims of reservation benefits based on false or fraudulent caste certificates.
The court noted the principle that obtaining constitutional benefits through a false community certificate amounts to constitutional fraud, and that such fraud cannot be protected merely by relying on technical grounds.
Applying that principle, the High Court held that verification of a community certificate is not barred merely because considerable time has elapsed since its issuance or because the employee has subsequently retired.
The court also referred to the Full Bench ruling of the Madras High Court and held that the petitioner could not be permitted to derive further benefits from a community status that had been found to be invalid.
Consequently, his request for release of the withheld employment and retirement benefits was also held to be unsustainable.
The two writ petitions filed by Jegannathan were accordingly dismissed, bringing the challenge to the State Level Scrutiny Committee’s findings to an end.
