- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. S. Krishnan And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent was appointed as a Gangman in the Railway Department in 1976 against a post reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribes (ST). He produced a community certificate dated 16-8-1976 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Dharampuri, asserting membership of the Malayalee Scheduled Tribe. In 1991 the General Manager, Southern Railway, sought verification of this certificate, and the District Collector reported that it was bogus, cancelling it accordingly. A departmental charge-sheet and inquiry followed, culminating in an order of removal from service on 23-12-1998.
During the inquiry, the respondent filed OS No. 4 of 1998 before the District Munsif Court, Dharampuri, seeking a declaration that he belonged to the Malayalee community. After his removal, he pursued several proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), leading ultimately to modification of the penalty to compulsory retirement with effect from 23-12-1998 and dismissal of a further original application (OA No. 1403 of 2000).
The respondent then filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court. The High Court relied on a letter dated 3-2-1971 from the Director of Welfare Officer’s Office, Vellore, to hold that the respondent belonged to a Scheduled Tribe (Lambadi/Sugali) and set aside the departmental orders. The Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent’s claim to Scheduled Tribe status—first as Malayalee and later as Lambadi (Sugali)—was sustainable under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended.
- Whether the Madras High Court erred in relying on an administrative letter dated 3-2-1971 to recognise Lambadi as a Scheduled Tribe in Tamil Nadu.
- Whether the respondent’s employment could be sustained when the community certificate produced at the time of appointment was found to be bogus.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's Arguments
- Contended in the writ petition that, although controversy existed over his Malayalee status, he actually belonged to the Hindu Lambadi caste, which he asserted was recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in Tamil Nadu.
- Relied on the Director of Welfare Officer’s letter dated 3-2-1971 stating that Lambadi (Sugali) was treated as a Scheduled Tribe in most parts of the State.
- During the Supreme Court hearing, counsel further argued that the respondent had been appointed in the general category, making the community status immaterial.
Appellants' (Union of India & State of Tamil Nadu) Arguments
- Maintained that Lambadi is not listed as a Scheduled Tribe in Tamil Nadu under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, or under G.O. Ms. No. 1773, Social Welfare Department, dated 23-6-1994.
- Submitted that the respondent was in fact appointed against a post earmarked for Scheduled Tribes, evidenced by his service records, and was therefore required to possess a valid ST certificate.
- Argued that the High Court’s reliance on the 1971 administrative letter was misplaced, as no executive communication can amend or add to the constitutional list of Scheduled Tribes.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi v. State of Kerala (1994) 1 SCC 359 | Courts cannot add to or delete from the Scheduled Tribe list specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. | Reaffirmed the principle that administrative or executive documents cannot alter the constitutional list; used to reject the High Court’s reliance on the 1971 letter. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 | Reiterated that any modification to the Scheduled Tribe list must come only through parliamentary amendment; executive orders have no efficacy. | Cited to buttress the conclusion that Lambadi is not a Scheduled Tribe in Tamil Nadu and that the respondent’s claim cannot be recognised. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the respondent’s original service records, which confirmed his appointment against a Scheduled Tribe vacancy and his submission of a community certificate claiming Malayalee ST status. The certificate was later verified and found bogus, leading to punitive action. The Court observed that, if the respondent had truly been appointed in the general category, no community certificate or subsequent declaration of tribal status would have been necessary.
Turning to the High Court’s reliance on the 3-2-1971 letter, the Court held that such correspondence could, at best, constitute a recommendation and could not amend the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Government Order No. 1773 (23-6-1994) and the constitutional schedule clearly excluded Lambadi from the list of Scheduled Tribes in Tamil Nadu. Applying the principles enunciated in Palghat Jilla Thandan and Milind, the Court underscored that neither courts nor executive authorities may alter the Schedule.
Given these findings, the Court concluded that the High Court misdirected itself in accepting the respondent’s Lambadi claim and in setting aside the departmental action. The bogus nature of the original certificate effectively disposed of the respondent’s eligibility for the ST-reserved post.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; HIGH COURT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE.
The respondent’s compulsory retirement, based on the finding of a bogus community certificate, stands restored. The decision reaffirms prior Supreme Court rulings that Scheduled Tribe status is governed exclusively by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and that neither administrative letters nor judicial forums may expand or modify that list. No new precedent is created, but the judgment consolidates existing jurisprudence on the immutability of the Scheduled Tribe schedule.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— 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 1976. 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 Tahsildar, Dharampuri, 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.
4. During pendency of the departmental inquiry, the respondent filed a civil suit in the District Munsif Court, Dharampuri i.e OS No. 4 of 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 OA No. 1156 of 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 OA No. 832 of 2000. By order dated 28-7-2000, the Tribunal directed the revisional 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 OA No. 1403 of 2000, was filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed.
5. 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, the Union of India and the 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 Tribes) Order, 1950 (in short “the Constitution Order”), as amended subsequently. The same clearly shows, as noted above, that Lambadi was not part of the Scheduled Tribes.
9. As has been observed by this Court in Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi v. State of Kerala (1994) 1 SCC 359 and State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4, (2000) 5 Supp 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 in relying on the letter dated 3-2-1971 of the Director of Welfare Officer's 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.
10. Looking at from any angle, the impugned order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.
11. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
Alert