Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

588
Karnataka PSC
(2) The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in AIR 1969 SC 267 (GUJARATH
ELECTRICITY BOARD v. GIRDHARLAL MOTILAL AND ANOTHER). At paragraph 6 of the
said judgment at page 269, this is what the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated:
“…Legislature has prescribed the manner of its exercise. It must be exercised in that
manner and in no other way. It must also be seen that the Parliament deliberately changed
the form of the Notice to be given from what it was before Act 32/1959 was enacted.”
(3) The decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 7 SCC 505 (R.KANDASWAMY v.
CHIEF ENGINEER, MADRAS PORT TRUST) is apposite to the facts of the case. In paragraphs
4 to 7 of the said decision, this is what the Supreme Court has said:
“4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Para 4 of
the GOMs No.2137 dated 11.11.1989 reads thus:
‘The Government directs that the Community Certificates in respect of
all communities included in the list of Scheduled Tribes, for the purpose of
appointments in public services under the Central and State Governments,
Public Sector Undertakings, quasi-Government Institutions, Banks etc., shall
hereafter be issued only by the Revenue Divisional Offices.’
5. On a doubt being raised regarding the validity of certificates issued by the Tahsildar
prior to 11.11.1989, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 3.4.1991
informed the Collector of various districts in Tamil Nadu that ‘the permanent Community
Certificate issued to the Scheduled Tribes by Tahsildars upto 11.11.1989 is valid’. This
communication had been placed on record in the High Court from a combined reading of
GOMs No.2137 dated 11.11.1989 and letter of the Joint Secretary dated 3.4.1881
(supra) it follows that whereas a Community Certificate after 11.11.1989 is required to
be issued by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 are valid certificates. In view of this
position, it was not proper for the Respondent to have insisted upon a fresh certificate to
be produced by the appellant from the Revenue Divisional Officer as admittedly the
Community Certificate produced by the appellant had been issued by the Tahsildar
concerned in 1987, that is prior to 11.11.1989.
6. In our opinion, the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate
by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all
purposes so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to
take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue
Divisional Officer.
7. The judgments of the High court under the circumstances cannot be sustained.
They are set aside and by a mandamus we direct the Respondent to take into consideration
the Community Certificate issued to the Appellant by the Tahsildar which had already
been produced before it for the purpose of consideration of the appellant to the
appointment.”