The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 14.6.1999, directing the petitioner to produce the community certificate obtained in her father's name as the community certificate produced by the petitioner in the name of her husband cannot be accepted.
2. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the affidavit are as follows:
(a) Petitioner was born to the parents belonging to Adi Dravida Christian community and passed B.Com degree. During her marriage with one Nathan, she re-converted to Hinduism and the marriage was solemnised under the Hindu rites on 21.10.1992. Petitioner's husband died in an accident on 11.4.1996. Petitioner declared her status as she belongs to scheduled caste community, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee, dated 22.7.1998 by stating that she re-converted to Hinduism in the name of D.Jayarani Nathan on 21.10.1992.
(b) Petitioner applied for the post of Group-IV services conducted by the TNPSC for the year 1996-1997. She had produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Radhapuram, dated 31.3.1993, wherein it is certified that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida community, which is recognised as a scheduled caste community, as per G.O.Ms.No.1564 dated 13.7.1985 and the SC&ST Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide Sl.No.204. Petitioner also produced a certificate from the Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi, dated 1.10.1996 to show that she is a destitute widow as her husband died on 11.4.1996.
(c) The respondents, provisionally selected the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and the selection order was communicated by the second respondent through his memo dated 19.1.1999. Petitioner was allotted to Tirunelveli Revenue District and she joined in service as Junior Assistant in Madhapuram Treasury Office, Tirunelveli District in February, 1999.
(d) While the petitioner was serving in the said post, she received a memo issued by the second respondent dated 14.6.1999, wherein the petitioner was requested to produce a fresh community certificate obtained in her father's name, as the community certificate already produced in the name of her husband cannot be accepted. Petitioner was also directed to produce the B.Com degree certificate or provisional certificate.
(e) The petitioner has no objection to produce the B.Com degree or provisional certificate and only the direction to produce the fresh community certificate obtained in her father's name is challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.3626 of 1999. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by order dated 5.7.1999 granted interim stay, which was ordered to continue until further orders on 19.7.1999 and by virtue of the said order, petitioner is continuously serving in the Revenue Department as no further order is passed by the respondents.
(f) The grounds raised in the original application, which is now transferred to this Court and numbered as the above writ petition are that the petitioner has already converted herself to Hinduism on 21.10.1992 and her marriage was performed as per the Hindu rites and customs; and that the petitioner's late husband Nathan was a Hindu Adi Dravida and the petitioner having been converted to Hinduism and her marriage performed as per the Hindu rites and customs with the said Nathan, who was admittedly a Hindu Adi Dravida, the community accepted the petitioner as a Hindu Adi Dravida and taking note of the said facts, the Tahsildar, Radhapuram, issued community certificate to the petitioner on 31.3.1993 and the said community certificate having not been cancelled or challenged by anybody, the respondents are bound to accept the said community certificate for all purposes and demanding fresh community certificate mentioning the name of the petitioner's father, is unsustainable.
3. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner's father's name was Devadasan and the said name being a Christian name, doubt arose as to whether the petitioner actually belongs to Hindu religion. It is also stated therein that only a person belonging to Hindu religion, hails from the communities included in the list of Scheduled Caste, can be considered as a Scheduled caste candidate and the person belonging to Christian religion, even though belongs to anyone of the communities included in the list of scheduled caste, cannot be considered as a scheduled caste candidate and they can be considered only as backward class candidate, and that a person who is a scheduled caste by birth alone will be deemed to be a member of the scheduled caste community. The Government also issued letter No.81 Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 19.9.2000 stating that a christian converted to Hindu faith cannot claim the status of Hindu Adi Dravida and therefore the demand of the respondents to produce a fresh community certificate through the impugned order is valid.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
5. The point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the petitioner can claim the status of scheduled caste on being converted to Hindu religion and by marrying the said Nathan on 21.10.1992 and after the demise of her husband on 11.4.1996, whether she can be treated as Scheduled Caste destitute widow, to claim appointment under the said category for selection to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist, coming within Group-IV service.
6. The petitioner was born to christian parents, is not in dispute. Petitioner's conversion to Hindu faith and her marriage with the said Nathan on 21.10.1992 according to Hindu rites and custom is also not in dispute. By virtue of the said marriage, Hindu Adi Dravida community accepted the petitioner to the said community is well established. Petitioner applied for community certificate before the Tahsildar, Radhapuram, who issued the community certificate on 31.3.1993 after local enquiry, which reads as follows:
"Certificate No.2185501 District Code : 18 Taluk Code : 09 Village Code : 001 COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Jayarani, wife of Thiru Nathan of V.Vallioor II Village/Town Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District of the State of Tamil Nadu, belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste as per G.O.Ms.No.1564 dated 30.7.85. The S.C. and S.T. Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide Sl.No.204.
2. It is certified that Jayarani and her family ordinarily reside(s) at V.Vallioor II Village/Town Radhapuram taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman district of the State of Tamil Nadu.
Sd/- xxxx 31-3-93 Tahdildar, Radhapuram."
On the death of the petitioner's husband on 11.4.1996, she had also obtained destitute widow certificate from the Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi. In the gazettee notification dated 22.7.1998, it is notified as follows:
"Thirumathi D.Jayarani (Christian), daughter of Thiru M.Devadason, born on 19th May, 1967 (native place: Vallioor), residing at 31, East Street, Oothady, Vallioor and Post - 627 117, has reconverted to Hinduism with the name of D.Jeyarani Nathan on 21st October, 1992.
D. JEYARANI."
From the above referred documents it is evident that the petitioner got herself converted to Hindu religion on 21.10.1992 and living as Hindu Adi Dravida and her husband having died on 11.4.1996, she is a destitute scheduled caste widow.
7. The petitioner applied for Group-IV service and was selected and appointed as Junior Assistant/Typist. The impugned notice was issued on the ground that the Government issued letter No.81 Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 19.9.2000 stating that persons converted to Hinduism from Christian religion are not entitled to claim scheduled caste status. The said Government letter was cancelled through G.O.Ms.No.1 Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 2.1.2009, pursuant to the order issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14769 of 2002 dated 13.4.2007 and the Government ordered to give scheduled caste status to the persons re-converted to Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism from christianity, provided they are accepted by their community. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.1 Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 2.1.2009 reads as follows:
"The children born to Christian Schedule Caste parents i.e., Christian by birth, converted to Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism at a later date and the Scheduled Caste parents embracing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism converted to other religion and subsequently reconverted to Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, if they are accepted by their community people, the Revenue Authorities can issue Scheduled Caste community certificate to them to become eligible for the constitutional privileges conformed on the Hindu Scheduled Caste (following Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism) and order accordingly."
8. In the light of the above stand of the Government and having regard to the fact that the community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Radhapuram, is not cancelled, the respondents have no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to produce community certificate mentioning the name of her father.
9. Whether a Christian Adi Dravida converted to Hindu faith marrying a Hindu Adi Dravida and accepted by the community as Scheduled caste member, can get the benefit of reservation given to the Scheduled caste community, was considered by me in W.P.No.38602 of 2006 dated 9.4.2009, and held that the petitioner in the said writ petition is bound to be treated as scheduled caste candidate. The following decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court were followed in the said case.
(a) In (1984) 2 SCC 91 (Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi), a Christian by birth when converted to Hinduism and married a member of the Scheduled Caste, was held to be belonging to her husband's caste on the evidence that she had not only been accepted, but also welcomed by the important members including the President and Vice President of the community.
(b) In the decision reported in (2003) 8 SCC 204 (Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary) it is held that the caste of the parents determines the caste of the person, but in case of re-conversion, a person has the liberty to renounce his casteless status and voluntarily accept his original caste. His caste status at birth is not immutable. Change of religion does not necessarily mean loss of caste. If the original caste is not positively disproved, the acceptance of the caste can be presumed. Such acceptance can also be presumed if he is elected by a majority to a reserved seat.
(c) In the decision reported in (2004) 1 SCC 1082 (State of Kerala & Another V. Chandramohanan) it is held that it cannot be accepted that merely by change of religion person ceases to be a member thereof or not must be determined by the appropriate court as such and the question would depend upon the facts of each case. In such a situation it has to be established that a person who has embraced another religion is suffering from social disability and also following the customs and traditions of the community.
(d) Similar question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2002 WLR 825 (N.S.Ziauddeen v. S.Ashok Kumar, Principal Sessions Judge) and in paragraph 10 the Division Bench held as follows:
"10. ....................... we are unable to accept the contention of Mr.A.Sirajudeen, learned counsel for the petitioner, that either there is an absolute bar for a non-Hindu to convert into Hinduism or that even such conversion will not restore the old caste to which he or his parents belonged to and more so in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohan Rao's case (supra). In fact, that case is closer to the facts of this case. In that case, Mr.Mohan Rao was born to parents belonging to Madiga caste, which is a recognised Scheduled Caste in the State of Andhra Pradesh and they were both converted to Christianity and Mr.Mohan Rao was born as Christian and later on, when he attained the age of 14, he was re-converted as Hindu. It is apt to extract the relevant passage contained in paragraph 7 thereto.
"The reasoning on which this decision proceeded is equally applicable in a case where the parents of a person are converted from Hinduism to Christianity and he is born after their conversion and on his subsequently embracing Hinduism, the members of the caste, to which the parents belonged prior to their conversion, accept him as a member within the fold. It is for the members of the caste to decide whether or not to admit a person within the caste. Since the caste is a social combination of persons governed by its rules and regulations, it may, if its rules and regulations so provide, admit a new member just as it may expel an existing member. The only requirement for admission of a person as a member of the caste is the acceptance of the person by the other members of the caste, for, as pointed out by Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., in Durgaprasada Rao v. Sundarsanaswami, AIR 1940 Mad 513 = 51 L.W.159, in matters affecting the well being or composition of a caste, the caste itself is the supreme judge (emphasis supplied). It will, therefore, be seen that on conversion to Hinduism, a person born of Christian converts, would not become a member of the caste to which his parents belonged, prior to their conversion to Christianity, automatically or as a matter of course, but he would become such member, if the other members of the caste accept him as a member and admit him within the fold."
In this case too, the parents of the first respondent belonged to Adi Dravidar caste and they got converted to Christianity in mid-thirties and these facts are not disputed. Equally, the facts that the first respondent was a born Christian after the conversion of his parents into Christianity, that his name was S. Antonysamy, a Christian name, and it continued to be so in all the school records and even up to the degree and Post-graduate degree including that of Degree in law and that he was enrolled as an advocate in the name of S.Antony Samy, are not disputed. But the first respondent claims that he got converted as Hindu pursuant to Sudhi ceremony and that he got married according to Hindu rites and even his daughter married a Hindu according to Hindu rites and that he is not professing Christianity but professing Hinduism and that still he remains a Hindu and that he was accepted as Hindu by his community on re-conversion and that the authorities to issue the Caste Certificate have issued the same on verification. While the conducting of Sudhi ceremony by the Arya Samaj and the effect thereof and also the acceptance of the first respondent into the community, performance of marriage between the first respondent and his wife according to Hindu rites and also that of his daughter later are all pure questions of fact. ............."
Applying the above said decisions to the facts of this case, I hold that the petitioner has established her status as a member of the scheduled caste community.
10. The next issue is, whether the respondents can direct the petitioner to produce fresh community certificate, mentioning the name of petitioner's father and whether the TNPSC has jurisdiction to make such a demand.
11. A similar matter was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2004 WLR 372 (K.K.Senthilkumaran & Another v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission). The Division Bench in the above case specifically held that the TNPSC has no power to verify the genuineness of the community certificate of the candidates to be selected and if a candidate has produced valid community certificate, the same shall be accepted for giving appointment. Following the said Division Bench decision, I have set aside similar notice issued by the TNPSC and the said judgment is reported in 2006 (5) CTC 252 (R.Suguna v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission). In R.Kandasamy v. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, reported in 1997 WLR 806, the Honourable Supreme Court held that once a community certificate is issued to a person by the competent authority, the same is valid until the same is cancelled. Thus, the respondents have no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice.
12. The impugned order passed by the respondents is held unsustainable as the petitioner has already produced valid community certificate issued by the competent authority to show that she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida, a scheduled caste community.
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.6.1999 is set aside. No costs.
Index : Yes/No.