IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37304 of 2003(N)
1. SAMVARANAM NASHTAPETTA PINNOOKA
... Petitioner
2. EZHAVA CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION,
3. ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, MALAYALAM DISTRICT
4. SOUL WINNING CHURCH OF INDIA,
5. MOVEMENT FOR UPLIFT OF MALANKARA
6. REV.JACOB JOHNSON, AREA CHAIRMAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :17/10/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.37304 OF 2003
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are espousing the cause of a class of
persons, who were originally included as other backward classes
eligible for reservation in appointments and were later got
themselves converted to Christianity. As per Ext.P1 order of the
erstwhile Government of Travancore – Cochin, the list of
backward classes included other Christians, which term was
defined to include Pulayas, Parayas and other Scheduled Cast or
Backward Community members converted to Christianity.
Subsequently, after the State of Kerala was formed, Ext.P2 order
was issued, whereby the Government re-defined the term
‘Backward Christians (other Christians)’ to include only converts
from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and not converts
from Backward Classes. The petitioners are now aggrieved by
this.
2. According to the petitioners, change of religion will not
take away the status of a person as a member of a Backward
W.P.(c)No.37304/03 2
Class in so far as the very same social disabilities attached to a
person as a member of a backward class would continue to be
attached to the converted backward class member even after
change of religion. The petitioners submit that by Ext.P4, the
Government held that the members of such communities have
been agriculturists for three generations and none of them was
engaged in toddy tapping and therefore, they are not eligible
for being classified as backward classes. This, according to the
petitioners, is a total erroneous view. The petitioners point out
that if that be so, the majority of the Ezhavas in Kerala would
not be eligible for reservation because they are no longer
toddy tappers. The question as to whether the backward class
member converted to Christianity would still be visited with the
disabilities of a backward class member depends on the facts
and circumstances, which can be ascertained only after an
anthropological study, which is beyond the scope of a writ
petition. Normally, such a process should be undertaken by
the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes appointed
under the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act,
1993. Representations are also pending before the
W.P.(c)No.37304/03 3
Commission in this regard. But the learned counsel for the
petitioners expresses a doubt as to whether the Commission
have powers to decide this question. Section 9 of the said Act
defines functions of the Commission.
“9. Functions of the commission.-
(1) The Commission shall examine
requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a
backward class in the lists and hear complaints of over-
inclusion or under-inclusion of any backward class in
such lists and tender such advice to the Government as
it deems appropriate.
(2) The advice of the Commission shall
ordinarily be binding upon the Government”.
Going by the said definition, the Commission is vested with the
function of examining requests for inclusion of any class of
citizen as a backward class. Here, the ‘Other Christians’
converted to Christianity from backward community was
originally included as a backward class. Later, they were
excluded. Now what the petitioners seek is inclusion of ‘Other
Christians’ converted from backward communities to be
included in the list of other backward classes for the purpose of
Article 16(4). Therefore, I am satisfied that the said task
W.P.(c)No.37304/03 4
squarely comes within the function of the Commission as
defined in Section 9 of the Act. I am also satisfied that the
Commission is the most appropriate expert body to deal with
this question.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would also
seek a direction that Exts.P2 and P4 be modified for this
purpose. I am of opinion that, that question also can be
considered by the Commission depending upon whether the
Christians converts from backward classes still continues to be
visited with the sufficient disabilities as a backward class.
Accordingly, I direct the 2nd respondent – Commission to
deal with the question and take a final decision in the matter
as provided in the Act, after complying with the procedure
prescribed including issue of notice to all affected parties, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six
months form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I
also direct the Commission to recommend to the Government
as to whether Exts.P2 and P4 should be modified appropriately
to include the ‘Other Christians’ converted from backward
classes also as ‘Other Christians’, so that the Government can
W.P.(c)No.37304/03 5
take a decision as to whether Exts.P2 and P4 should be
suitably modified if the recommendation of the commission is
in in favour of such a course of action.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.37304/03 6