http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  255 of 2004

PETITIONER: L. Ushadevi

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/04/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2004 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2004 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2004

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

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

       Konda Reddi is notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential order  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 \026 Respondent No. 1  herein, which is a statutory body controlled by the Central Government.  Her  appointment was 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.

       In other civil appeals also, relying on or on the basis of the purported  certificates issued in their favour, the appellants obtained their appointments  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.

       The questions which have been raised before us by the learned  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  Nadu. (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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

       The Act was enacted to provide for and regulate the issue of  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 alia in the State of Kerala.

       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 question as to whether a certificate had wrongly been  obtained and the procedures were laid down for the purpose of cancellation  thereof.

       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.

       The question in regard to the power of such Committees recently  came up for consideration before this Court in State of Maharashtra and  Others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr. [2006 (10) SCALE 575 :  2007 (1) SCC 80] wherein referring to Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), it was  held:

       "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."

       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]

       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,  being not necessary at this stage.

       The Act is a complete code by itself.  ’Appointment in public 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(l) 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 of India.

       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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

verification of Community Certificates:  Government shall constitute a scrutiny committee  for 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."

       Section 11(1) of the Act reads as under:

"11. Cancellation of false community certificate \026  (1) 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 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, if any."

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

"30. Transitional Provision \026 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 under the provisions of this Act, be  valid and shall be deemed to have been issued  under the provisions of this Act."

       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  difficult to comprehend as to how they obtained caste community certificate  from the authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu.

       The jurisdiction of a Scrutiny Committee under the Act is of wide  amplitude.

       When a competent statutory authority invokes its jurisdiction, we fail  to understand as to why the appellants could not submit themselves to the  said jurisdiction.

       In M/s. Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2006 (13)  SCALE 297], it is stated:

       "The question as to whether jurisdictional  fact existed for issuance 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 jurisdiction in  entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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 Another v.  Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3  SCC 440 and Union of India and Another v.  Kunisetty 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 purpose [See K.I. Shephard and Others v.  Union of India and Others  (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."

       At one point of time, the controversy as to whether the jurisdiction 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  to the Central Government.

       It is true that in the case of the appellant, the Kerala High Court by an  order dated 25.07.1989 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  the order of the State Government.  We, however, do not wish to dwell  thereupon.

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

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

       For the reasons aforementioned, these appeals are dismissed, being  devoid of any merit.  No costs.