R USHARANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents forbearing them from conducting a fresh enquiry relating to the community status of the petitioner in W.P.No.13962 of 1999. In W.P.No.23616 of 2001, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to give promotion to the petitioner and extend all other benefits by treating her as belonging to Scheduled Tribe community.

(2.) It is claimed by the petitioner that she belonged to Kattunayakan community which comes under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. On that basis the petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-typist under the respondent bank. At that time, she had produced the community certificate dated 7.8.1977 issued by the Tahsildar. The petitioner claims that she was again called upon to produce another community certificate and accordingly she obtained another community certificate dated 17.6.1989 from the Tahsildar, Kodavasal, which was produced before the respondent bank. The petitioner claims that due to frivolous complaints sent through various persons and organisations having no connection in the matter, an enquiry was commenced in the year 1998. However, it is submitted that after enquiry at the level of the Tahsildar and the level of the Revenue Divisional Officer, a favourable report dated 3.5.1999 has been submitted to the bank and yet the enquiry has been re-opened. The petitioner claims that such a belated enquiry is not contemplated, particularly at the instance of the persons who have no locus standi and in view of the favourable report, there is no necessity to hold any further enquiry. The petitioner also claims that merely because there has been subsequent suspicion regarding the community certificate, which had been issued in favour of the petitioner long back, the respondent bank has withheld the service benefits such as promotion, confirmation, etc..

(3.) Initially, W.P.No.23616 of 2001 has been disposed of ex-parte in the absence of third respondent bank, but subsequently, such order has been recalled. The third respondent respondent bank has filed a counter and the matter has been heard afresh.