IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 566 of 2010()
1. N.K.OMANA,,W/O.SURENDRANATH,C3-3,
... Petitioner
2. P.N.GOWRI,W/O.K.V.PADMANABHAN, AGED 60,
3. M.K.RAJAMMA, W/O.P.K.VASU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. UNION OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :04/06/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Writ Appeal No.566 of 2010.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Gopinathan, J.
Reading the decision of the Apex Court in Punit Rai V.
Dinesh Chaudhary (Civil Appeal No.659/2003), Sobha
Hymavathi Devi V. Setty Gangadhuja Swamy and others
(Civil Appeals Nos.4413-4414 of 2003), SLP(C).No.21472-
73/2005 (filed by Dr.Anoop) and the decision of this Court in
Indira v. State of Kerala (WP(C).No.2483, 7039, 17317 of
2005 and connected cases), in suppression of certain earlier
orders regarding the guidelines for issuing community
certificates to the children borne to inter-caste married
couple of which one of the parents is Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe, for educational and employment
benefits, on 20.11.2008, the first respondent State issued
W A.No.566 of 2010.
-: 2 :-
Ext.P5 order. Assailing the second condition in Ext.P5, the
appellants preferred WP(C).No.10778/2009 seeking the
following main relief:
“Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order calling
for the files leading to the issuance of Ext.P5
Government Order and quash the 2nd
condition imposed therein in the matter of
issuing caste certificate declaring it as
illegal and unconstitutional.”
2. The learned Single Judge by the judgment
impugned dismissed the writ petition holding that Ext.P5
order was issued incorporating the declaration made by this
Court and hence unsustainable. Now this appeal.
3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the Government Pleader.
4. Though the second condition in Ext.P5 order as
such is assailed, the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the appellants are not aggrieved of the
condition in full, but a portion of the condition that before
issuing the certificate, the authorised officer shall ensure
W A.No.566 of 2010.
-: 3 :-
the economic and educational disability alone is assailed.
According to the learned counsel, it is in a way introducing
creamy layer system for issuing community certificate
regarding the status of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe. On the other other, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that once cross marriage occurs communal
stigma goes and all children borne to those parents are not
automatically entitled to the benefits available to Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe children and in the event the parties
to intercaste marriages are affluent and well educated they
are not entitled to the special privileges available to the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and the State has the
liberty to restrict such benefits to actual deserving persons
and the intent of the condition challenged is only to that
extent. It was also submitted by the learned Government
Pleader that to uplift those who are downtrodden for years,
reservation and other concession for education and
employment are provided and the Government in its
W A.No.566 of 2010.
-: 4 :-
wisdom, taking into account of the cross marriages with
persons belonging to upper caste and affluent families and
their children lodging claims for educational and
employment benefits as against really deserving persons
and defeating them, imposed such condition and it would no
way affect the really eligible parties. It was also submitted
that the appellants were not at all denied certificate in view
of the conditions assigned. We find merit in the submission
made by the learned Government Pleader. The appellants,
who had engaged in cross marriages, have no case that the
conditions imposed in the order impugned had any way
affected their rights or of any deserving children or that any
direction given by this Court or the Apex Court in any of the
decision referred was violated. But, the grievance is that
certain other additional conditions are imposed. In the
above circumstance, at present, there is no room for any
grievance to the appellants. However, we find that in the
event the appellants apprehend that in future, Ext.P5 would
W A.No.566 of 2010.
-: 5 :-
affect their rights adversely, they are at liberty to represent
to the first respondent who shall consider the same on
merits and issue appropriate orders/modification. We find
no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. The
appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed
reserving the right to approach the State for any
modification of Ext.P5. No order as to costs.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
(Judge)
P.S.GOPINATHAN
(Judge)
kvs/-