L. USHADEVI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 916 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
L. USHADEVI 
v. 
v 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Kera/a (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue 
of Community Certificates Act, 1996-lncumbent resident of State of Kera/a 
y-
c 
though originally belonged to Tamil Nadu-Appointed on basis of the Caste 
Certificate that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe-Cancellation of caste 
certificate-Termination of service-/ncumbent's case that under the Act 
certificates granted by State of Kera/a only could be cancelled-On appeal 
held: Appointee within the purview of the Act being resident of Kera/a-
Since High Court directed the Government of India to determine whether 
D appointee belonged to Kondareddy caste, no interference is called for-
Committee is directed to determine the same expeditious(v. 
Konda Reddi is notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential order 
j 
< 
for the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. 
E 
Forefathers of the appellant migrated to the State ofKerala but originally 
belonged to the State of Tamil Nadu. Appellant was appointed in a statutory 
body controlled by the Central Government on the basis of the caste certificate 
that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe. She was issued show cause notice as to 
why her certificate should not be cancelled. Disciplinary proceedings were 
F 
initiated and her services were terminated. However, the Division Benrh of 
the High Court set aside the order. 
< 
Appellants in other civil appeals were also similarly appointed in the 
Central Government or public sector undertakings and their services were 
also terminated but the tribunal set aside the order. 
G 
Appellants contended that the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes) Regulation oflssue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 contained 
provisions for cancellation of certificates granted by the authorities of State 
of Kerala and not the State of Tamil Nadu; and that the Act was applicable 
H 
916 
L. USHA.DEVI v. U.0.1. 
917 
'J 
only to the employees of the State Government and no to the employees of the A 
Gonrnment of India or their institutions. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It is not a case where the appellants were outside the purview 
B 
of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes) Regulation of Issue 
of Community Certificates Act, 1996. Appellants are residents of the State 
of Kerala. It is difficult to comprehend as to how they obtained caste community 
-\ 
certificate from the authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu. (Para 141 (921-EI 
1.2 The jurisdiction of a Scrutiny Committee under the Act is of wide c 
amplitude. When a competent statutory authority invokes its furisdiction, it 
cannot be understood as to why the appellants could not submit themselves to 
the said jurisdiction. (Paras 15 and 161 (921-E-FI 
Mis. Siemens Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2006) 13 SCALE 
297, referred to. 
D 
1.3. At one point of time, the controversy as to whether the jurisdiction 
' t 
to deal with such a matter, as the employees concerned were holding posts 
under the Central Government might be relevant. The courts might have 
directed the Central Government to hold an investigation in relation thereto. E 
But, once the legislature of a State enacts an Act which is a self contained 
code, it might not have been necessary for the court to refer the matter again 
to the Central Government. (Para 18[ [922-D-EI 
1.4. In the case of the appellant, the High Court directed the Government 
of India to resolve the doubt as to whether the appellant belonged to the F 
)• 
Kondareddy caste, but the same could not have been a ground for setting aside 
the order of the State Government. As the high Court has directed 
consideration of the matter afresh, nothing more is said in this behalf. 
However, the Committee is directed to determine the question, as expeditiously 
as possible keeping in view the fact that the matters are pending for a long 
G 
time. (Paras 19, 20 and 211 (922·E-GJ 
" 
Kumari Madh11ri Patil and Anr. v. Additional C,.o_mmissioner, Tribal 
Development and Ors., (1994[ 6 SCC 241; State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. 
Ravi Prakash Babula/sing Parmar and Anr., (2006) IO SCALE 575; (2007J 
I SCC 80 and State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Sanjay K. Nimje, (2007) AIR H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
sew 1575. referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 255 of2004. 
From the Final Judgment and Orde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.