http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1103 of 2008

PETITIONER: Union of India & Ors

RESPONDENT: S. Krishnan & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1103            OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12346 of 2006)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division  Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the writ petition filed  against the order passed by the Central Administrative  Tribunal, Chennai (in short, ’the Tribunal’).

3.      Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:

The respondent was appointed as Gangman by the  Railway Department in the year 1.976. He claimed to be a  member of Scheduled Tribe, i.e., Malayalee Community. After  he joined service, he was directed to produce the Community  Certificate. The Deputy Tehsildar, Dharmapuri, issued a  certificate on 16.8.1976. In the year 1991, the General  Manager, Southern Railway, Dharampuri requested the  District Collector of the District to verify the respondent’s  Community Certificate. The Collector sent a report stating that  the Community Certificate filed by the respondent was a bogus  one and cancelled the same. After receipt of the report, charge  sheet was issued and departmental inquiry was conducted.  During pendency of the departmental inquiry, respondent filed  a Civil Suit in the District Munsif Court, Dharampuri, i.e.,  O.S.No.4/1998, for decree of declaration that he belonged to  Malayalee Community. In the suit, a prayer was made for  direction for production of the original community certificate.  The Inquiry Officer closed the inquiry and submitted his report  on the basis of which order of removal from service was passed  on 23.12.1998. A challenge was made to the said order by  filing an Original Application, i.e., O.A.No.1156/1999. The  same was disposed of with the observation that if a  departmental appeal is preferred, the same shall be disposed  of within a particular time. Since the appellate authority  dismissed the appeal, a revision was filed. As, according to the  respondent, there was some delay in disposal of the revision  petition, again the Tribunal was moved in O.A.No.832/2000.  By order dated 28.7.2000, the Tribunal directed the Revisional

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Authority to pass the order within a particular time. The  Revisional Authority modified the order of removal from service  to one of compulsory retirement with effect from 23.12.1998.  Another Original Application, i.e., O.A.No.1403/2000, was  filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed. 4.      The stand of the respondent in the writ petition was that  though the controversy was whether he belonged to a  Scheduled Tribe, i.e. Malayalee Community, he, in fact,  belonged to Hindu Lambadi caste which comes within  Scheduled Tribes. Reliance was placed on certain  communications, more particularly, the letter dated 3.2.1971  of the Director of Welfare Officer’s Office, Vellore where it was  accepted that throughout the State except Kanyakumari  district and another Taluk, Lambadi (Sugalis) was considered  as Scheduled Tribe. The appellants, Union of India and State  of Tamil Nadu, opposed the Writ Petition stating that Lambadi  community does not come under Scheduled Tribes and, in  fact, the respondent having obtained employment in respect of  the post earmarked for Scheduled Tribes, he cannot take the  plea that he belongs to Lambadi community, which is at  variance with his earlier claim. 5.      The High Court, placing reliance on the letter of the  Director of District Welfare, referred to above, came to hold  that the respondent belonged to Scheduled Tribe and,  therefore, the orders passed by the departmental authorities  were set aside. It is to be noted that during the course of the  hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the respondent  took the stand that the respondent was appointed as a general  category candidate and not as a member of the Scheduled  Tribe and, therefore, it hardly matters whether he belongs to  Scheduled Tribe or not. 6.      The stand of the learned counsel for the Union of India  and the State of Tamil Nadu is that Lambadi is not a  Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tamil Nadu. In any event, it is  not factually correct, as contended by the respondent, that he  was appointed as general category candidate. Learned counsel  for the State of Tamil Nadu has filed Order No.1773 of the  Social Welfare Department, dated 23.6.1994, giving details of  the communities belonging to the Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled Tribes. With reference to the same, learned counsel  for the State submitted that Lambadi is not a Scheduled  Caste. 7.      Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the original  service records of the respondent were produced. It appears  from the appointment order that he was appointed in respect  of a post earmarked for Scheduled Tribes. If in reality the  respondent was appointed in respect of a post belonging to the  general category, there was no need for filing a Community  Certificate. Further, there was also no need for seeking a  declaration that he belongs to the Malayalee Community.  From the records produced it is crystal clear that the  respondent applied as a member of the Scheduled Tribe  claiming to be a member of the Malayalee Community. The  Community Certificate produced was found to be bogus. That  essentially is the end of the matter. His further stand that  though he may not belong to the Malayalee Community, he  belongs to Lambadi Community is really of no consequence.  Even then, it needs to be noted that the document referred to  by learned counsel for the State giving details of the  communities belonging to the Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled Tribes clearly falsifies the claim of the respondent  that Lambadi Community was a part of the Scheduled Tribes.  The document referred to by learned counsel for the State of  Tamil Nadu was issued under the Constitution (Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (in short, ’the

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

Constitution Order’), as amended subsequently. The same  clearly shows, as noted above, that Lambadi was not part of  the Scheduled Tribes.  8.      As has been observed by this Court in Palghat Jilla  Thandan Samudhaya Samithi & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.  (1994) SCC 359), and State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors.  (2000) 5 (Suppl) SCR 651), there is no scope for making any  alteration by way of addition or deletion from the Entry made  in the Constitution Order. The High Court clearly misdirected  itself on relying on the letter dated 3.2.1971 of the Director of  Welfare Office. A bare look at it goes to show that the same  was really not relatable to any Entry in the Constitution Order  but at the most was in the nature of a recommendation as has  been rightly contended by learned counsel for the State of  Tamil Nadu.

9.      Looking at from any angle, the impugned order of the  High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.      10.     The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.