IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 18446 of 1997(U)
1. DR.P.LEELAKUMARI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :17/09/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
O.P.NO. 18446 OF 1997
============================
Dated this the 17th September 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The petitioner was an Assistant Professor in the Kerala
Medical Education Service while filing this writ petition. She got
employment under the State under the quota reserved for
Scheduled Tribes on the strength of a caste certificate obtained
by her showing that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe
Community. The said claim of the petitioner that she belongs to
a scheduled tribe was the subject matter of the proceedings of
the scrutiny committee constituted under G.O.(P) No.
16/95/SCSTDD dated 8-5-1995. The committee found that
parents of the petitioner do not belong to Malai Arayan
Scheduled Tribe Community, but they are members of Arayan
community, which is only an O.B.C. in the State of Kerala. The
petitioner seriously disputed the finding of the scrutiny
O.P.NO.18446/1997 -2-
committee that her mother does not belong to Malai Arayan
community. But it is an admitted position that her father is not a
member of the Malai Arayan community, he is only a member of
Arayan community. Based on Ext.P4, the Government issued
Ext.P40 order. As per that order, the Government, inter alia,
directed the prosecution of the petitioner for making false
claims as to caste status.
2. Since the father of the petitioner admittedly belongs to
an O.B.C.community, the claim of the petitioner that she belongs
to the Schedueld Tribe Malai Arayan is plainly untenable. So, it is
unnecessary to consider whether the findings of the
Government that her mother does not belong to Malai Arayan is
correct or not. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Punit
Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary, 2003(8)S.C.C.204 and other cases
and also the decision of the Full Bench in Indira v. State of
Kerala, 2005(4)K.L.T.119, the caste of the petitioner is
normally that of her father. No materials are produced or
pleaded in the writ petition to dislodge that presumption. In
view of the above position, the challenge against Exts.P34 and
O.P.NO.18446/1997 -3-
P40 fails. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
direction to prosecute the petitioner at this distance of time for
having done something in the remote past is unsustainable in
law. She relies on the decision of this Court in Sreekumary v.
State of Kerala, 2006(1)K.L.T.144 . We feel that if the State
finally launches any prosecution against the petitioner, she can
raise all the contentions available under law by way of defence in
that prosecution. In other words, the decision of the Government
to prosecute her and our refusal to interfere with the same will
not affect the contentions of the petitioner concerning the
validity of any prosecution launched against her based on
Ext.P40. Subject to the above right, the original petition is
dismissed.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE
ks.
O.P.NO.18446/1997 -4-
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.
O.P. NO. 18446 OF 1997
JUDGMENT
17-9-2008
O.P.NO.18446/1997 -5-
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.
CRL.A.NO. 243 OF 2005
JUDGMENT
28-8-2008