THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order No. J4/27113/2012, dated 19.09.2012, of the District Level Vigilance Committee, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, whereby the District Level Vigilance Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner to belong to the Hindu - Kavara Community and declared her to be a Hindu ? Maruthuvar. The District Level Vigilance Committee directed that the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate issued to the petitioner would stand cancelled and a fresh Community Certificate issued to her by the Deputy Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, certifying that she belonged to the Hindu - Maruthuvar Community.
2. According to the petitioner, her father G.Muthukumar, her mother - R.Hemalatha, her grandparents, aunts and uncles, all belonged to the Hindu - Kavara Community.
3. In the writ petition, it is pleaded that the petitioner was born in India on 26.03.1994. At the material time when the petitioner was born, her father, G.Muthukumar was employed as a Mechanic in Saudi Arabia. The petitioner claims that her parents were originally Hindus of the Kavara Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. However, before the petitioner was born, her parents converted themselves to Christianity.
4. According to the petitioner, she and her sister born in 2001, had their initial education in Saudi Arabia. After her parents returned to India in 2006, the petitioner continued her school education from Class VIII in Adarsh Vidhya Kendra at Nagercoil in Kanyakumari District and after completing Class X, she appeared for the Secondary Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, securing 459 marks, out of 500. The petitioner appears to have passed the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu State Board from the same school, securing 1154 out of 1200 marks.
5. According to the petitioner, while her parents were in Saudi Arabia, they practised Christianity. After the petitioner and her family members returned to India, they got themselves reconverted to their original faith of Hinduism, but no formal changes were effected in the school records, where the religion of the petitioner was entered as Christian. On the basis of the aforesaid school certificate, the Deputy Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, issued a Community Certificate, certifying that the petitioner belonged to the Christian ? Maruthuvar Community, which is a Notified Backward Class.
6. After the petitioner completed her school education, she applied for admission to the Medical Course. The petitioner was treated as an OBC [Other Backward Community] candidate on the basis of the certificate issued by to her by the Deputy Tahsildar.
7. At the request of the petitioner, entries in the school records were altered and the caste of the petitioner was entered in the school records as Hindu ? Kavara, which is a Notified Scheduled Caste Community. However, in view of the Certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar recording that the petitioner belonged to the Christian ? Maruthuvar Community, which was a Notified Backward Class, the Selection Committee treated the petitioner as a candidate of the Backward Class. The petitioner failed to clear the selection test and was, thus, denied admission. It was only thereafter that the petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Kalkulam, for issuance of a Certificate certifying that she belonged to the Hindu ? Kavara Community.
8. The petitioner claims to have produced documents to show that she along with her family members had reconverted to Hinduism by going through rituals in several temples.
9. According to the petitioner, her paternal grandfather, Thiru.N.Gomathynayagam alias Sankaran was a barber who belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
10. By order of the Special Tahsildar, Nagercoil, dated 14.08.1976, the petitioner's grandfather was allotted a plot under a scheme of the State Government of allotment of house plots of 3 cents to barbers in each Harijan Colony serving the Harijan Community.
11. The petitioner has also stated that her father, G.Muthukumar, who had been born Hindu, but adopted Christianity, had later reconverted to the Hindu faith and his reconversion to Hinduism was notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 19.10.2011.
12. There can be no doubt that conversion operates as an expulsion from the caste or in other words, the convert ceases to have any caste, because caste is predominantly a feature of Hindu society and ordinarily a person who ceases to be a Hindu would not be regarded by other persons, to be of the caste to which he earlier belonged, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.M.Arumugam v. S.Rajgopal reported in (1976) 1 SCC 863. On conversion, a member of a Scheduled Caste would necessarily lose all the benefits to which the members of that caste are entitled to.
13. The question, however, is whether such a convert would on reconversion to his original religion become a member of the original caste and be entitled to the same protection given to the caste. The aforesaid issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P.Manu v. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1.
14. In K.P.Manu's case (supra), Dipak Misra, J., discussed the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 3 SCC 576; (ii) Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi reported in (1984) 2 SCC 91; (iii) Guntur Medical College v. Y.Mohan Rao reported in (1976) 3 SCC 411 and held that there was no rational principle why a person who had embraced another religion should not be able to come back to his caste. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it could not be laid down as an absolute rule, uniformly applicable in all cases, that whenever a member of a caste was converted from Hinduism to Christianity, he lost his membership of the caste.
15. In Kailash Sonkar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a person converted to Christianity or some other religion, his/her original caste remained under eclipse and as soon as during his/her life time, the person reconverted to original religion, the eclipse disappeared and the caste automatically revived.
16. In Mohammed Sadique v. Darbara Singh Guru reported in (2016) 11 Supreme Court Cases 617, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in effect, held that what was essential was to what religion ancestors originally belonged and what religion a candidate concerned was actually professing independently even of the rest of the family. If the ancestors originally belonged to Scheduled Caste, it did not matter if the parents or spouse belonged to a different religion.
17. In K.P.Manu (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "38. In our considered opinion, three things that need to be established by a person who claims to be a beneficiary of the caste certificate are: (i) there must be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste that has been recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; (ii) there has been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and earlier generations had belonged; and (iii) there has to be evidence establishing the acceptance by the community. Each aspect according to us is very significant, and if one is not substantiated, the recognition would not be possible."
18. It is pleaded that the petitioner's father also applied for a Certificate on 04.11.2011, stating that he belonged to the Hindu ? Kavara, Scheduled Caste Community.
19. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the petitioner's application for a Scheduled Caste Certificate, enquiries were conducted by different Tahsildars and ultimately, the Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District - Smt.C.Bhavani Jeeja, submitted a report stating that the petitioner belonged to the Hindu ? Kavara Scheduled Caste Community.
20. Pursuant to the application of the petitioner, the Transfer Certificate issued to the petitioner by her school, which contained the entry as Christian ? Maruthuvar was changed and a fresh Transfer Certificate was issued showing the petitioner to be a Hindu ? Kavara of the Scheduled Caste Community.
21. However, as no Scheduled Caste Certificate had been issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Tahsildar, the petitioner could not avail the benefit of reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes in Medical Courses. According to the petitioner, having regard to the marks scored by her, she would have qualified for the Medical Course if her candidature had been considered as a Scheduled Caste candidate.
22. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court on 31.07.2012, which was dismissed in limine on the ground that she had participated in the selection of the previous year as a candidate of Backward Community.
23. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal being W.A.(MD)No.529 of 2012 in this Court, whereupon an order dated 24.08.2012, was passed by this Court, directing the Director of Medical Education and the Selection Committee to reserve one seat in the M.B.B.S Course for the petitioner for the academic session 2012 ? 2013.
24. In Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for issuance of a Scheduled Caste Certificate. The judgment provided for the constitution of a Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise applications for inter alia Scheduled Caste Certificates. After 01.04.1997, the District Level Vigilance Committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu is alone competent to verify Caste/Community Certificates.
25. This Court also granted liberty to the Director of Medical Education to refer the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee to verify the correctness of the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
26. Pursuant to notices, the petitioner attended meetings in the office of the District Collector at Kanyakumari District along with the connected documents. On 19.09.2012, the petitioner appeared before the District Level Vigilance Committee along with her father. The Committee was headed by the District Collector.
27. The petitioner claims that she produced the following documents in support of her claim that she belonged to Hindu ? Kavara Scheduled Caste Community:
"(i) School Transfer Certificate of her father G.Muthukumar dated 29.11.1977;
(ii) School Transfer Certificate of her mother Hemalatha, dated 19.06.1990;
(iii) School Transfer Certificate of her paternal aunt - Tmt.G.Subbulakshmi, dated 06.06.1981;
(iv) School Transfer Certificate of her paternal aunt ? Tmt.G.Chellammal of the year 1976;
(v) 'Hindu Kavara' ? Scheduled Caste Community Certificate of her Paternal Aunt Tmt.G.Chellamal, dated 16.10.1990;
(vi) Proceedings dated 14.08.1976 before the Special Thasildar (Harijan Welfare) for allotting house plot to her paternal grandfather ? Thiru.N.Gomathinayagam @ Sankaran;
(vii) Letter issued by the Secretary of the 'Arulmigu Radhakrishnan Kovil Devotees Trust' dated 20.12.2008 and 20.10.2011;
(viii) Certificate dated 26.09.2011 of Re-conversion of the petitioner's family issued by Vivekananda Asramam;
(ix) Gazette publication regarding the re-conversion of the petitioner's family along with news paper publication in Dhina Thanthi, dated 19.10.2011;
(x) Certificate issued by the President of Thingal Nagar Panchayat, dated 04.11.2011;
(xi) Original School Transfer Certificate, dated 25.06.2011 and Corrected Transfer Certificate (corrected on 13.06.2012) of the petitioner;
(xii) Family Ration ? Card; and
(xiii) Permanent Community Certificate (Hindu Kavara ? Scheduled Caste) of the petitioner's father, sister and the petitioner, dated 01.12.2011."
28. The Committee, however, held that the petitioner did not belong to the Hindu ? Kavara Community, but she belonged to Hindu - Maruthuvar Community and cancelled the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate, dated 01.12.2011.
29. In passing the impugned order, the District Level Vigilance Committee headed by the District Collector took note of the following factors:
(i) The petitioner had herself obtained Christian - Maruthuvar Community Certificate No.8877101, from the Taluk Office, Kalkulam Taluk, on 08.08.2009;
(ii) She had applied for admission to the M.B.B.S.,/B.D.S., Course for 2011 - 2012 as a Backward Class Community;
(iii) Back files relating to issue of Certificates were not available in the Taluk Office, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District and had only entries made in the Community Certificate Register. It showed that the Certificates had been issued to the petitioner; and
(iv) The petitioner's father had got married in accordance with Christian rules. Even though the Committee noted that the petitioner and her father had adduced the documentary evidence in favour of their claim to belong to Hindu - Kavara Community, such as, Transfer Certificate issued to the petitioner's father in 1977, certifying that he belonged to Hindu - Kavara Community, Transfer Certificates of two of the petitioner's father's sisters, Community Certificates of other family members, the same were not dealt with. The Committee also overlooked the house site patta granted to the petitioner's father's father, Thiru.Sankaran in 1976.
30. In rejecting the petitioner's claim, the Committee took serious note of the fact that the petitioner's father, G.Muthukumar, though born Hindu, had got married as per Christian rites. Serious note was also taken of the fact that contradictory Certificates had been obtained by the same person. The Committee also took into consideration the Anthropological report regarding the characteristics of the Kavara Caste and found that the father of the petitioner did not resemble persons belonging to Hindu - Kavara Caste.
31. After discussing the characteristics, the Committee found that the traditional occupation of Maruthuvar Caste was the occupation of barbers or Christians, whereas Kavara Caste did not include barbers.
32.
Article 338 (1) of the Constitution of India provides for a Commission for the Scheduled Castes which is known as National Commission for the Scheduled Castes.
33. Under
Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India, it is the duty of the Commission to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the Scheduled Caste under the Constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards.
34.
Article 338(5)(b) of the Constitution of India casts a specific duty on the National Commission to inquire into specific complaints with regard to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes.
35. Under
Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India, the Commission investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause(a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (5), i.e., specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes, is to have all the powers of a civil Court trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely,
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court of office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and
(f) any other matter which the President may, by rule, determine.
36. Under clause (9) of
Article 338 of the Constitution of India, the Union and every State Government shall consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting Scheduled Castes.
37. In view of this specific power conferred on the National Commission under Article 338(5)(b) read with
Article 338(8)(a) to (f) of the Constitution of India, the National Commission is better equipped to decide factual questions with regard to whether a person who is claiming Scheduled Caste status, in fact, belongs to a Scheduled Caste or not?
38. This Court in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact as to whether or not a person belongs to any particular caste. However, this Court exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has the duty to find out if there has been any procedural irregularity on the part of an administrative authority in arriving at a decision.
39. The short question before us is whether the District Level Vigilance Committee has committed any irregularity in arriving at its conclusion. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the affirmative.
40.
Article 341 of the Constitution of India authorises the President to specify castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or or Union Territory, by public notification.
41. The list of Scheduled Castes is contained in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended inter alia by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act and
Section 41 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956.
42. A person who belongs to a caste included in the Scheduled Castes Order 1950, made under
Article 341 of the Constitution does not cease to belong to caste merely because he has performed ceremonies or functions pertaining to a higher caste. Whether a person would be entitled to the benefit of reservation would depend on whether that person and her ancestors were born into a Scheduled Caste specified in the Scheduled Caste Order proclaimed by the President and not whether the person actually performed the traditional duties pertaining to that caste.
43.
Article 341 of the Constitution of India specifically empowers the President to declare a group within a caste as a Scheduled Caste. Similarly, a caste or a group within a caste may be a Scheduled Caste in relation to a specific area, but not other areas.
44. The object of clause (i) of
Article 341 of the Constitution of India and the proclamation of a Scheduled Castes Order thereunder, is to avoid disputes as to whether a caste is a Scheduled Caste or not for the purposes of the Constitution of India.
45. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 has been promulgated by the President under power conferred under
Article 341 of the Constitution of India. Once the Parliament by law includes in or excludes from the Order any caste or race or tribe or parts of a group within any caste, race or tribe, the President would have no power to vary the same by subsequent notice. The Court is also devoid of power to interpret the Scheduled Castes Order or declare synonyms of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or parts or groups of such castes or tribes.
46. The Courts have no power to go behind the Order or to hold any enquiry or to let in any evidence to determine whether or not any particular community falls within the Order or not. Nor has the State such power.
47. Admittedly, Hindu ? Kavara Community is listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as a Scheduled Caste in Kanyakumari District and Shencottah Taluk of Tirunelveli District of State of Tamil Nadu. The District Level Vigilance Committee was, thus, required to enquire into whether the petitioner was born in a family which had belonged to the Hindu ? Kavara Community. To determine whether the petitioner was born into the Hindu
- Kavara Community, the Committee would have to ascertain whether the petitioner's parents, forefathers and/or ancestors belonged to the Hindu - Kavara Community. The vocation of the petitioner or her forefathers was of no consequence.
48. The District Collector and Chairman of the District Level Vigilance Committee being the respondent No.4, has also filed a counter affidavit describing the characteristics and avocation, etc., of the Hindu - Kavara Community, - where they originally resided, the language spoken and the script used by them, customs followed by them, etc. These factors are totally irrelevant, since the Community is listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as a Scheduled Caste in Kanyakumari District and in Shencottah Taluk of Tirunelveli District in Tamil Nadu. Similarly, whether the people of Kavara caste originally resided in Trivandrum State or not; Kavara which was a part of erstwhile Trivandrum State is of no relevance.
49. The District Level Vigilance Committee clearly fell in error in embarking upon an enquiry into the profession that was practised by the petitioner's family. Hindu ? Kavara Community of Kanyakumari District having been declared as a Scheduled Caste by Presidential Order, the District Level Vigilance Committee had no power or authority to go into the question whether the members of the Community, in fact, practised the traditional profession. The entries in the Presidential Order have to be taken as final. It is not open to the Court or the State Government to exclude any member of the Caste/Community listed in the Presidential Order as a Scheduled Caste from the benefits available to the Scheduled Castes.
50. On mere reading of the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, it appears that it is the President who has to declare a particular caste to be categorised as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any particular area. The factual finding arrived at in the course of enquiry conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice, is not ordinarily to be upset as the High Court or Tribunal does not ordinarily act as a Court of appeal. Claims for Scheduled Caste Certificates are considered by a Caste Scrutiny Committee, in this case, the District Level Vigilance Committee, which is a quasi-judicial body set up for the specific purpose of determining whether a claimant actually belongs to a particular caste to which he claims to belong.
51. The makers of the Constitution of India laid emphasise on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged groups to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficial provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled to, he not only plays a fraud on the society but, in effect and substance, plays a fraud on the Constitution of India. When, therefore, a Certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter. Moreover, before cancelling a Certificate of status as Scheduled Caste, the holder of the Certificate should be given an opportunity to establish his case.
52. The caste of a person depends on birth. It is, thus, obvious that the Government cannot determine the caste of a particular person or class of persons. The competent authority, in this case, the District Level Vigilance Committee can only determine if the petitioner was born into any specified caste by enquiring into whether her forefathers belonged to that caste. If there is dispute, it depends upon the evidence as to in which caste, one is born and is brought up, as to the practices and customs one might follow, the acceptance of the incumbent by the caste or group in a caste to which he/she claims to belong and several other related aspects. It is to be determined by the competent authority, based on evidence, in case of doubt or dispute.
53. In Kumari Madhuri Patil case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as set out hereunder:
"High Court is not a Court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a Court of appeal may be possible it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts."
54. In Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham and others reported in (2011) 8 MLJ 930 (SC), a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and relied upon Kumari Madhuri Patil case (supra) and held at paragraph 22 as under:
"22. Each scrutiny committee has a vigilance cell which acts as the investigating wing of the committee. The core function of the scrutiny committee, in verification of caste certificates, is the investigation carried on by its vigilance cell. When an application for verification of the caste certificate is received by the scrutiny committee, its vigilance cell investigates into the claim, collects the facts, examines the records, examines the relations or friend and persons who have knowledge about the social status of the candidate and submits a report to the committee. If the report supports the claim for caste status, there is no hearing and the caste claim is confirmed. If the report of the vigilance cell discloses that the claim for the social status claimed by the candidate was doubtful or not genuine, a show-cause notice is issued by the committee to the candidate. After giving due opportunity to the candidate to place any material in support of his claim, and after making such enquiry as it deems expedient, the scrutiny committee considers the claim for caste status and the vigilance cell report, as also any objections that may be raised by any opponent to the claim of the candidate for caste status, and passes appropriate orders. The scrutiny committee is not an adjudicating authority like a Court or Tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions of administrative authorities, the orders of the scrutiny committee are also open to challenge in proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution."
55. In view of the law enunciated and/or reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P.Manu (supra), the District Level Vigilance Committee was required to examine whether the petitioner's parents or grandparents had, prior to their conversion to Christianity, belonged to a caste recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; whether there had been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and/or earlier generations had belonged and whether there was evidence of acceptance of the reconversion by the community.
56. In passing the impugned order, the District Level Vigilance Committee has apparently not considered and discussed vital documents, such as, School Transfer Certificate of the petitioner's father - G.Muthukumar, dated 29.11.1977; School Transfer Certificate of the petitioner's mother - Hemalatha, dated 19.06.1990; School Transfer Certificates of her paternal aunts; Hindu - Kavara Scheduled Caste Community Certificate of her paternal aunt - G.Chellammal, as also the order of the Special Tahsildar/patta allotting house plot to her paternal grandfather, N.Gomathinayagam alias Sankaran as a member of a Scheduled Caste. Those documents, if considered, may have led to a different conclusion. The impugned order passed ignoring/overlooking the vital documents which if considered, might have led to different conclusions, cannot be sustained in law.
57. The District Level Vigilance Committee rightly deprecated and took a serious view of the action of the petitioner in obtaining a Backward Class Certificate first and then later, applying for a Scheduled Caste Certificate. However, for availing reservation and/or other benefits available to the Scheduled Castes, what is material is whether the petitioner's forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste; whether the petitioner was practising religion pertaining to the caste and whether the petitioner was accepted as a member of the caste.
58. The District Level Vigilance Committee misdirected itself in not considering the aforesaid factors in the light of the documents and other evidence disclosed and/or adduced by the petitioner. Of course, if after consideration off the documents, disputes still existed with regard to the authenticity or genuineness of the documents or correctness of the evidence with regard to the lineage of the petitioner and the like, the petitioner would have to refer the disputes to the National Commission.
59. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned order of the District Level Vigilance Committee is set aside. The District Level Vigilance Committee shall consider the question of whether the petitioner belonged to Hindu ? Kavara Community; whether the petitioner's aunts/all her ancestors belong to Hindu ? Kavara Community or not, taking into consideration all relevant documents, including Caste Certificates/Transfer Certificates, land allotment documents, such as, pattas issued to different members of the family of the petitioner and after giving the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing.
60. The District Level Vigilance Committee shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The District Level Vigilance Committee, may, if it deems appropriate, refer the issue of whether the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of reservation applicable to the Scheduled Caste Community to the National Commission for its decision. In the event, such reference is made, the National Commission shall decide the issue expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of reference. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing.
61. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Adi Dravida & Tribal Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of Medical Education, DMS Complex, No.162, EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
3.The Secretary, Selection Committee, B.D.S., Course 2012 - 2013 Session, No.162, EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.