http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: R. PALANIMUTHU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RETURNING OFFICER

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/02/1984

BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1984 AIR  905            1984 SCR  (3)  10  1984 SCALE  (1)392

ACT:      Section  100(1)   (c)-Reserved   constituency-Candidate giving false  certificate as  belonging to  scheduled tribe- Election held void.

HEADNOTE:      In his  election petition  the appellant contended that the second  respondent who  in fact  belonged to  the  Hindu Reddy community  contested the  election from  the  reserved constituency  falsely  claiming  that  he  belonged  to  the Scheduled Tribe  Konda Ready community and that by virtue of section 100(1)  (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the  election was  void. It  was also contended that at the time  of the  scrutiny  of  the  nomination  papers  the appellant had  raised this  objection but that the Returning Officer, without  holding a  proper  enquiry,  rejected  the objection relying  upon a  certificate of the Tehsildar that the second  respondent belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Konda Reddy  community.  The  high  Court  rejected  the  election petition and upheld the election.      Allowing the appeal (by the Court) ^      HELD:  There   is  no  dispute  that  the  Konda  Reddy community is  a Scheduled  Tribe community.  On the evidence available on  record it  is  impossible  for  any  Court  to reasonably conclude  that the  second respondent belonged to the Konda  Reddy Scheduled  Tribe  community.  In  fact,  he belonged to  the Hindu  Reddiar community,  which is  not  a Scheduled Tribe  community. Therefore, his election from the reserved constituency  was void  under section  100(1)(c) of the Act. [19D-G]      per Varadarajan, J. Other Judges expressing no opinion.      With the  laudable object of promoting the educational, economic and  social advancement of the Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes the  Government  had been awarding  scholarships, hostel  accommodation and other facilities, making  reservation  of  seats  in  Professional Colleges  and   institutions  of  higher  learning  and  for appointments to  Government and  quasi Government  jobs. But not infrequently,  false certificates are obtained by others to obtain  these benefits  thus depriving  the  persons  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

whose advantage  these benefits are created. The false claim in this  case which  escaped the  scrutiny of  even the High Court had to be negatived only after considerable effort and expenditure on  the part  of those  who wish to lay bare the facts. The  same kind  of scrutiny  and contest could not be expected from students and 11 candidates belonging  to Backward  Classes, Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes when these benefits are sought on false certificates. So  long as  the benefits  are  continued  for these classes, the Government machinery must exercise strict scrutiny. The  Government must  stop any  fraud which may be committed on it as well as these classes of people by taking appropriate steps  in regard to grant of certificates, while at the  same time  ensuring that  persons belonging to these classes obtain the requisite certificates without difficulty from the authorities empowered to issue the same. [19H-20A]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4027 of 1982.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated the 27th September, 1982 of  the High  Court of Judicature at Madras in Election Petition No. 4 of 1980.      P. Chidambaram,  Parmeswaran,  P.  Manoharam  and  A.S. Nambiar for the Appellant.      A.V.Rangam and Ms. Sarla Chandra for respondent No. 1.      S.N.Kacker, M.G.Ramachandran  and K.Kammadasam  for the respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VARADARAJAN,  J.   This  appeal  by  special  leave  is directed against  the judgment  of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court dismissing Election Petition No. 4 of 1980 with costs quantified at Rs. 1000. The Election Petition was filed for declaring the election of the second respondent V. Arangarajan alias  V. Rangarajan  alias Perumal to the Tamil Nadu  Legislative   Assembly  from   No.  157,  Uppiliapuram Scheduled Tribes reserved Assembly Constituency in Thuraiyur taluk, Tiruchirapali  district,  in  the  election  held  on 28.5.1980 as  void and  further declaring that the appellant R.Palanimuthu has  been duly elected from that constituency. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we allowed the appeal  on 17.12.1983 to the extent of setting aside the election of  the second respondent for reasons to follow and directed the  parties to  bear the  respective costs. Now we proceed to give our reasons.      The polling  took place on 28.5.1980 and the result was announced after  the counting  was  over  on  1.6.1980.  The second 12 respondent belonging  to the  AIADMK  secured  43,263  votes while the appellant belonging to the Congress (I) party, his closest rival, secured 40,997 votes. The other candidates in the field,  respondents 3  to 5 secured less than 1752 votes each and the second respondent was declared elected.      The constituency  has been declared by the notification dated 26.2.1969  issued by  the Election Commission of India under the  provisions of  the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order  (Amendment) Act  108 of 1976 to be a Scheduled Tribes constituency.  Consequently only candidates belonging to the  Scheduled Tribes  as per  the Constitution  and  the Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes Order 1950 as amended in 1976  could contest  for election  from this constituency

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

having regard to Article 173 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’.      The nominations  of all the twelve candidates who filed their nominations before the last date fixed for the purpose were accepted  by the first respondent, Returning Officer as valid. Later,  seven of  those candidates  withdrew  leaving only the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 in the field.      By the  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes  Order, 1950,  Konda   Reddies  in  Tamil  Nadu  except  Kanyakumari district and  Shencottah taluk  in Triunelveli district have been declared  as belonging  to the Scheduled Tribes. Later, by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976 the exception made in respect of Kanyakumari district and  Shencottah taluk  in Triunelveli  district has been  removed   with  the  result  that  Konda  Reddies  are thereafter shown to be existing throughout Tamil Nadu.      Only Scheduled Tribes candidates could contest from the constituency concerned in view of the provisions referred to above.  The   appellant’s  contention  is  that  the  second respondent does  not belong  to the  Konda  Reddy  Scheduled Tribe community  as claimed  by him but is a Hindu Reddy and was therefore not qualified to be chosen to contest from the reserved constituency  and consequently his election is void under Section  100 (1) (c) of the Act. The second respondent opposed the  election petition contending that he belongs to the Konda  Reddy Scheduled Tribe community and was therefore entitled to  contest from  the constituency and his election is valid. 13 The appellant  filed objection  to  the  acceptance  of  the second respondent’s  nomination at  the time  of scrutiny of nominations by  the  first  respondent,  Returning  Officer, contending that the second respondent does not belong to the Konda  Reddy   community  and  was  not  a  Scheduled  Tribe candidate. This  objection was  admittedly rejected  by  the first  respondent  who  appears  to  have  relied  upon  the Tehsildar’s certificate.  The appellant’s contention is that the  first   respondent  rejected   his  objection   to  the acceptance  of  the  nomination  of  the  second  respondent relying  upon   the  certificate   obtained  by  the  second respondent from  the Tehsildar to the effect that he belongs to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community without holding a proper enquiry and applying his own mind to the principles of law and the material placed before him.      On the pleadings the learned Single Judge who tried the election petition framed the following four material issues:      1.   Is the second respondent a person not belonging to           the Konda Reddy (Scheduled Tribe) community?      2.   Was the acceptance of the nomination of the second           respondent improper?      3.   Is the election of the second respondent liable to           be declared  void under  sections 100  (1) (c),100           (1)  (d)   (i)  and   100  (1)  (d)  (iv)  of  the           Representation of the People Act, 1951?      4.       Is   the  petitioner  entitled  to  a  further           declaration under s. 101 of the Act?      On consideration  of the  oral and documentary evidence adduced before  him by  the parties  as also the evidence or three other  persons examined  as CWS  1 to  3, the  learned Single Judge  held that the second respondent belongs to the Konda Reddy  Scheduled Tribe  community and  he  upheld  the second respondent’s  election  and  dismissed  the  election petition with  costs as  mentioned above.  In coming  to the conclusion that  the second  respondent belongs to the Konda

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Reddy Scheduled  Tribe community  the learned  Single  Judge found that the evidence of the second respondent RW-1 and of his father  RW-9 that  the second  respondent belongs to the Konda Reddy community is corroborated by the evidence of not only RWs-2,  3, 4 and 6 but also by the evidence of RW-5 who belongs to  the Naidu community and knows the members of the second respondent’s family and by 14 the evidence  of RW-7  who belongs  to the Oorali community- The learned Judge has made the following general observation regarding the  witnesses examined on the second respondent’s side:           "Generally I  find that all the witnesses who come      to depose  on behalf  of  the  second  respondent  were      elderly persons  and have  impressed me  very  much  as      telling the  truth. They are also independent witnesses      and expected  to  know  the  community  of  the  second      respondent in  view of  their residence  in the village      and their  long acquaintance.  The  veracity  of  their      statements had  not been  shaken (in)  the least in the      cross-examination. I  have no  hesitation in  accepting      the evidence  of these  witnesses when  they state that      the second  respondent belongs to Konda Reddy community      which is a Scheduled Tribe."      Before us  it was  not disputed  that the  constituency concerned has  been reserved  by law  for  Scheduled  Tribes candidates and  therefore only  Scheduled Tribes  candidates could contest  for election  from that  constituency. It was also not  disputed that the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 contested  as  Scheduled  Tribes  candidates  and  that  the appellant belongs  to the  Scheduled Tribe community and the election of the second respondent would be void under s. 100 (1) (c)  of the  Act and the appeal would have to be allowed if the  second respondent does not belong to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe  community. The only dispute before us is on the question  whether the  second respondent  belongs to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community. The appellant’s stand on this  point is that the second respondent does not belong to the  Konda Reddy  community and  is not a Scheduled Tribe candidate  entitled   to  compete   for  election  from  the constituency concerned but is a Hindu Reddy, while the stand of the  second respondent  is that  he is  a Konda Reddy and belongs to  the Scheduled  Tribe community and was therefore entitled to  compete for  election from the constituency and has been  validly elected.  There is  no dispute  that Konda Reddy community  is a  Scheduled Tribe  community. Arguments were advanced  by Mr.  P. Chidambram,  learned  counsel  who appeared for  the  appellant  and  Mr.  S.N.Kackar,  learned Senior Counsel  who appeared  for the  second respondent  on this only  question.  The  first  respondent’s  counsel  Mr. A.V.Rangam did not advance any argument.      It is  seen from  the evidence of PW-12, the then Chief Electoral 15 Officer, Tamil  Nadu that  the constituency  concerned was a non-reserved or  general constituency upto February 1979 and that it  was converted  into  a  Scheduled  Tribes  reserved constituency by  the notification  Ex. P-76  dated 26.2.1979 issued  by  the  Election  Commission  of  India  under  the provisions of  the Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes Order  (Amendment)  Act,  1976  which  came  into  force  on 19.9.1976. The appellant and respondents 2 to 5 contested in the election held in the constituency concerned on 28.5.1980 as Scheduled  Tribes candidates.  The second respondent RW-1 had obtained  the certificate  Ex. R-1 dated 25.10.1977 from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the Tahsildar  Thuraiyur soon  after the  inclusion of Konda Reddy community  in the list of Scheduled Tribes by the said amendment of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes (Order)  Act,   1976.  The  parties  relied  upon  oral  and documentary evidence  before the learned Single Judge of the High Court  for proving  their respective  contentions.  But before us  much reliance was not placed on oral evidence and our attention was invited to certain relevant documents. The oral evidence adduced on the side of the appellant is to the effect that  the second  respondent  belongs  to  the  Hindu Reddiar community  which is  not included  in the  Scheduled Tribes while  the oral  evidence adduced  on the side of the second respondent  is to  the effect  that he belongs to the Konda Reddy community which is a Scheduled Tribe community.      Mr. Chidambram  invited our  attention to  four sets of documents. Exhibits  P-26, P-27,  P-28, P-29, P-30, P-31 and P-32 are  documents  relating  to  the  second  respondent’s family and constitute one set. Exhibits R-2, R-3, P-23, P-24 and P-63 constitute the second set. Exhibits P-7, P-12, P-32 and P-58  constitute the  third set.  Exhibits P-9 (a), P-10 (d) and  P-59 constitute the fourth set. Exhibits P-7, P-12, P-32 and  P-58 constitute  the third  set. We shall consider these documents separately.      Ex. R-9  is the  sale deed  dated 4.3.1899  executed by Veera Reddy  in favour  of Chellammal  wife  of  the  second respondent’s grand  father Perumal  Reddy.  Ex.  P-26  dated 8.10.1926 is  the  mortgage  deed  executed  by  the  second respondent’s father  Venkata Reddy  and his  parents Perumal Reddy and Chellammal in favour of one Narayana Reddy. Ex. P- 27 is  an order  of 1965 sanctioning an agricultural loan of Rs. 2000/-  to the second respondent’s father Venkata Reddy. Ex. P-28  dated 7.10.1970  is the  sale deed executed by the second  respondent’s  father  Venkata  Reddy  in  favour  of Periasamy and  another. Ex.  P-29 is  an Execution  Register extract 16 showing that Challammal, wife of Venkata Reddy is the decree holder-auction purchaser in E.P.No. 270 of 1971 in O. S. No. 1865  of  1970  on  the  file  of  the  Additional  District Munsiff’s Court,  Thuraiyur. Ex.  P-30 dated 9.7.1973 is the sale deed  executed by  Chellammal wife  of Venkata Reddy in favour of one Veerasamy and others. Ex. P-31 dated 13.9.1976 is the sale deed executed in favour of the second respondent described as  the son of Venkata Reddy by one Ramasamy Reddy and others.  In all  these documents the second respondent’s family’s community is mentioned as Hindu Reddy community.      Ex. R-2  dated 15.4.1958  is  the  first  page  of  the Secondary School Leaving  Certificate relating to the second respondent who  is stated  therein to  be a Hindu Reddiar by caste. Ex.  R-3 is  the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of  the   second  respondent’s  sister  Leelavathi  born  on 15.12.1948. The  second respondent’s father has verified all the entries  in columns  1 to 6 of Ex. R-3 to be correct and has undertaken  not to demand any change in those entries in future. Against  column 2  (iii)  relating  to  Leelavathi’s community, as  to whether  she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or most Backward Class or is a  Convent to  Christianity from  any Scheduled Caste the second respondent’s  father has  answered that  query saying that she  does not  belong to  any of  those  castes  by  an emphatic ’No.  RW-1 has admitted that Ex. R-3 relates to his sister Leelavathi  and contains  his father’s  signature. He has, however,  stated that  his father is illiterate and has put his  signature in  the original  Ex. R-3 without knowing what it  contains. Ex.  P-23 is  an extract  from the  birth

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

register relating  to a  made child  Veerama  Reddy  son  of Venkata Reddy and Chellammal born on 29.12.1937. Ex. P-24 is another birth  register extract  relating to  the birth of a male child  Perumal, evidently  the  second  respondent;  on 6.6.1943 to the parents Venkata Reddy and Chellammal. Ex. P- 63 is  another birth  register extract relating to the birth of a  female child  born on  1.9.1949. Venkata Reddy himself had informed  the authority concerned about the birth on the next day  and has  signed the entry in token thereof. In all these documents  also the  second respondent  and his father are mentioned as belonging to the Hindu Reddiar community.      Ex. P-7  dated 11.6.1963  is  the  second  respondent’s application  for   admission  into  a  Cooperative  Training Institute.  Ex.   P-12  dated   12.6.1972  is   the   second respondent’s  application  for  admission  of  his  daughter Geetha in  a Panchayat  Union Elementary School. Ex. P-32 is the certified copy of the plaint in Small Cause Suit No. 169 17 of 1980  instituted by the second respondent in the District Munsiffs’  Court,   Thuraiyur.  The  second  respondent  has asserted in his evidence that he signed that plaint prepared by the Advocate’s clerk without going through its cointents. Ex. P-58  is the  entry in  the Service Register relating to the second respondent under his signature dated 5.7.1967. In all these  documents also the second respondent is described as a Hindu Reddiar.      The above documents show that the second respondent and his father  Venkata  Reddy  and  grandfather  Perumal  Reddy belong to  the Hindu  Reddiar community.  The appellant gave notice under  Order 12 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the second respondent for admitting certain facts. One of the facts  he was  required to  admit is  that Hindu Reddiar community is  not a  Scheduled Tribe  community. The  second respondent had  admitted that the Hindu Reddiar community is not a  Scheduled Tribe  community and  stated  that  he  had obtained the  certificate dated 25.10.1977 from Tahsildar of Thuraiyur taluk  to the  effect that he belongs to the Konda Reddy community,  and that he had applied on an earlier date for the  grant of that certificate in order to enable him to apply for  a job.  Faced with  the aforesaid documents which clearly show  that the  second respondent and the members of his family  belong to  the Hindu  Raddiar community which is admittedly  not  a  Scheduled  Tribe  community  the  second respondent has  sought to  get over the difficulty by saying that Konda  Reddy community  is a  sub-caste  of  the  Hindu Reddiar  community.  This  explanation  cannot  be  accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.      The last  set of  documents have  been produced to show that the  second respondent had not claimed to belong to the Konda Reddy  Scheduled Tribe  community though he would have done so  if he  belongs to  that community  in fact  but has merely stated  that he  is the son of Venkata Reddy. Ex. P-9 (a) dated  12.3.1968 is  the second respondent’s application for appointment  as Supervisor in a Land Mortgage Bank where he has described himself as the son of Venkata Reddy. Ex. P- 10  (d)   dated  26.3.1978   is  the   second   respondent’s application for  appointment as  a Trustee  in Sri  Prasanna Venkatachalapathy temple  and  other  temples  at  Thuraiyur where also  he has  described himself  as the son of Venkata Reddy. Ex.  P-59 dated  8.1.1965 is  the second respondent’s application for  appointment as  a Junior  Assistant in  the Thuraiyur Rural  Cooperative Bank  where  he  has  described himself as  the son  of Venkata  Reddy. Ex. P-10 (d) may not serve the  purpose for which this set of documents have been produced in the absence of any material on record to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

18 show that  the second respondent would have stood to benefit in the  matter of appointment as a trustee of the temples if he  had  mentioned  that  he  belongs  to  the  Konda  Reddy Scheduled Tribe  community. It  is common  knowledge that in Tamil   Nadu   reservation   for   certain   percentage   of appointments in  Government and quasi Government services is based on  the community  to  which  applicants  belong.  The reservation of  certain percentage  of the  appointments  to Backward Classes  on the  one hand  and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes  together  on  the  other  has  been  made depending upon  the relative population of those communities in that  State. Scholarships  and  hostel-accommodation  are available  in   that  State  to  the  Backward  Classes  and Scheduled Caste  and Scheduled  Tribes students  subject  to eligibility. These facts are well known in Tamil Nadu. It is not probable  that the  second respondent who had applied in 1965 and  1968 for  appointment as  a  Junior  Assistant  in Thuraiyur Rural Cooperative Bank and as Supervisor in a Land Mortgage Bank  was not  aware that  it would be advantageous for him to mention in those applications that he belonged to the Konda  Reddy Scheduled Tribe community if in fact he had belonged to  that community. We think that he would not have failed to  mention in  those applications that he belongs to the Konda  Reddy Scheduled Tribe community if in fact he had belonged to  that community.  While the  first three  of the four sets  of documents  mentioned above probablise the fact that the  second respondent  belongs to  the  Hindu  Reddiar community  which   admittedly  is   not  a  Scheduled  Tribe community, Ex. P-9 (a) and P-59 in the last set of documents improbablise the second respondent’s case that he belongs to the Konda  Reddy Scheduled Tribe community. Ex. R-3 which is one of  the documents  in the  first set is a very important document which  conclusively  establishes  that  the  second respondent does  not belong  to the  Konda  Reddy  Scheduled Tribe  community,  for  in  that  document  which  had  been verified by  the second  respondents father to be true under his signature  with an  undertaking that he would not demand any change  in any  of the  entries in  columns 1  to 6  the second respondent’s  father has  stated  that  his  daughter Leelavathi to  whom Ex.  R-3 relates  does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe  or scheduled  Caste or  Most Backward Class and was  not a  Convent to  Christianity from  any Scheduled Caste. The  second respondent’s father RW-9 has conveniently stated in  his evidence  that he  does not  know to  read or write Tamil,  Telugu or  any other language, that he used to previously sign  in Tamil and that he has lost his eye-sight and could not see whether Exs. R-2 and R-3 contain his 19 signature. It is not possible to receipt the evidence of RW- 1 who   has  admitted that  Ex. R-3  relates to  his  sister Leelavathi and  contains his father’ signature, as mentioned above, that  his father  RW9 is illiterate and he had signed Ex. R:3  without knowing  what it contained. RW-9 appears to be ignorant of the existence of the community known as Konda Reddy community,  for he  has stated  in his  evidence  that there is  no community known as Konda Reddy community though earlier he had stated in his evidence that he belongs to the Konda Reddy  community. RW-1 has stated in his evidence that he came to know that he belongs to the Konda Reddy community only from  the information  given to him by his father RW-9. It is  not the case of the second respondent that his father RW-9 himself came to know that he belongs to the Konda Reddy community only  after the date on which he put his signature in the  aforesaid important document Ex. R-3 in which he has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

clearly admitted  that  his  daughter  Leelavathi  does  not belong to  any Scheduled  Tribe.  Therefore,  RW-9  who  has clearly admitted  in Ex.  R-3 that  his daughter  Leelavathi does not  belong to  the Scheduled Tribe community could not have informed  the second  respondent that  they belonged to the Konda  Reddy community.  On the  evidence  available  on record in  this case  it is  absolutely impossible  for  any court to  reasonably conclude  that  the  second  respondent belongs to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community and not the Hindu  Reddiar community.  We may  state here  that  Mr. S.N.Kackar  found   it  almost  impossible  to  support  the judgment  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  that  the  second respondent  belongs  to  the  Konda  Reddy  Scheduled  Tribe community and that his nomination and subsequent election as a Member  of the  Tamil Nadu  Legislative Assembly  from the Scheduled Tribes  reserved constituency concerned are valid. For these  reasons we  hold that  the second respondent does not belong  to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community but belongs to  the Hindu  Reddiar  community  which  is  not  a Scheduled Tribe  community and  that his  election from  the Scheduled Tribes  reserved constituency  concerned  is  void under s.  100 (1)(c)  of the  Act. We  therefore  allow  the appeal and  set aside  the second respondent’ selection with costs as stated above.      Before I part with this appeal I would like to say what we feel  that the Government of Tamil Nadu should notice for taking such  remedial  action  as  it  may  deem  necessary. Scholarships   are   awarded,   hostel   accommodation   and facilities are  made available  and reservation  of seats in professional and  other colleges  and institutions of higher learning and for appointment to posts in 20 government and  quasi-government service  have been  made in Tamil Nadu  for the  backward classes  forming one group and Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes forming another group on the ratio of their population with the laudable object of helping their  educational, economic and social advancement. The second  respondent who  has now been found to be a Hindu Reddiar  and   not  a   Scheduled  Tribe  Konda  Reddy,  had admittedly  obtained   the  Tahsildar’s   certificate  dated 25.10.1977 to  the effect  that he  belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Konda  Reddy community  admittedly with  the object of securing a  job as  a Scheduled  Tribe candidate.  If he had succeeded in  getting any job in government service or quasi government service  on the  basis of  that certificate it is needless to  say that  he  would  have  deprived  some  real Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate getting the job on the  basis  of  the  aforesaid  reservation.  The  second respondent  has   used  that   certificate   for   obtaining nomination and  election in  a Scheduled Tribes Constituency of the  Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly even though he ought to have  known that other candidates in the keenly contested election might  raise objection  to his false or wrong claim that he  is a  Scheduled Tribe  candidate. The  wrong  claim which escaped  the scrutiny of even the High Court had to be negatived only by this Court after the appellant had taken a lot of pains and incurred considerable expenditure in filing the present  appeal. This  amount of  scrutiny  and  contest could not  be expected  from  students  and  candidates  for appointments who belong to Backward Classes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes. If  attempts are  made by persons not belonging to  any  of  these  communities  at  securing  the special benefits  to which these Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled Tribes  students  and  candidates  are entitled under  the rules  in force in that State, and there

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

is no proper scrutiny of the claim of such persons that they belong to  these classes  the benefits which are intended by the State to go to these classes will be taken away by those to whom  they are not really intended. Therefore, so long as these benefits  are  continued  for  the  aforesaid  classes strict scrutiny  has to  be made  by  the  State  Government machinery and  the fraud which may be committed on the State and those  classes of  people for  whom these  benefits  are really intended  by those  for whom  these benefits  are not meant by  producing false  community certificates  has to be stopped by  the government  taking appropriate steps. At the same time  it must  be ensured that it is not made difficult for persons  really belonging to these classes obtaining the necessary community  certificates from  those authorised  to issue the 21 same. A copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu.      FAZAL ALI & RANGANATH MISRA, JJ. We entirely agree with the reasons  given by  brother Varadarajan,  J. for allowing the appeal.  However, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the  observations made by our learned Brother in the last paragraph of  the judgment, beginning with the words "Before we part  with" and  ending with  "authorised  to  issue  the same". P.B.R.                                       Appeal allowed. 22