Landmark Decision by Madras HC on Quota: A recent ruling by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court stated that a person who has undergone a religious conversion is ineligible to receive benefits under the caste to which they were born. The state government would only classify such a person as belonging to "other communities," it stated.
Landmark Decision by Madras HC on Quota after Conversation
In dismissing a petition brought forth by a candidate who was once a Hindu (DNC) but converted to Islam in 2008, Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation. In the Combined Civil Services Examination-II (Group-II Services) recruitment that was held in 2018–19, the candidate had challenged the decision of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to not treat him as a 'Backward Class (Muslim)' and instead to consider him under the 'General' category.
The petitioner's attorney claimed that when the petitioner converted to Islam, he only exercised his fundamental right under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner was a member of the MBC (DNC) prior to converting, according to the petitioner's attorney, and since Muslims in Tamil Nadu are typically seen as belonging to the "Backward Class," after converting, he should be seen as such. He also cited a 2015 community certificate from the Ramanathapuram taluk's zonal deputy tahsildar certifying that the petitioner is a member of the Muslim Labbai community.
However, Justice Swaminathan rejected these claims, pointing out that only seven sections of Muslims have been recognized as belonging to the Backward Class as per an order passed by the TN government in 2008. He added that the certificate issued by the jurisdictional deputy tahsildar would have a lower status than a government letter because "The Tamil Nadu government established that candidates who converted from another religion to Islam would only be given consideration under the "others category" in up to four letters.
The judge added, citing a Madras High Court ruling from 2013, "A person cannot carry his community of birth even after conversion." The judge dismissed the petition after stating that he could not uphold the petitioner's claim because a similar matter was before the Supreme Court.
Landmark Decision by Madras HC on Quota after Conversation
In dismissing a petition brought forth by a candidate who was once a Hindu (DNC) but converted to Islam in 2008, Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation. In the Combined Civil Services Examination-II (Group-II Services) recruitment that was held in 2018–19, the candidate had challenged the decision of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to not treat him as a 'Backward Class (Muslim)' and instead to consider him under the 'General' category.
The petitioner's attorney claimed that when the petitioner converted to Islam, he only exercised his fundamental right under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner was a member of the MBC (DNC) prior to converting, according to the petitioner's attorney, and since Muslims in Tamil Nadu are typically seen as belonging to the "Backward Class," after converting, he should be seen as such. He also cited a 2015 community certificate from the Ramanathapuram taluk's zonal deputy tahsildar certifying that the petitioner is a member of the Muslim Labbai community.
However, Justice Swaminathan rejected these claims, pointing out that only seven sections of Muslims have been recognized as belonging to the Backward Class as per an order passed by the TN government in 2008. He added that the certificate issued by the jurisdictional deputy tahsildar would have a lower status than a government letter because "The Tamil Nadu government established that candidates who converted from another religion to Islam would only be given consideration under the "others category" in up to four letters.
The judge added, citing a Madras High Court ruling from 2013, "A person cannot carry his community of birth even after conversion." The judge dismissed the petition after stating that he could not uphold the petitioner's claim because a similar matter was before the Supreme Court.
