IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1315 of 2008()
1. RAJU.K., S/O.K.KANNAN, KARUMPALLAM HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KASARGOD.
For Petitioner :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :23/07/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.A.NO.1315 OF 2008 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY,J.
Petitioner applied for the post of Electricity Worker
(Mazdoor) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. In the
S.S.L.C. Book, his caste is shown as ‘Mavilan’ (Scheduled
Caste). When he was called for interview, he produced Ext.P5
caste certificate, which shows that he belongs to ‘Nalkadaya’,
which is also a Scheduled Caste. Since the caste shown was
different from the caste shown in the S.S.L.C. Book, that was
not accepted by the PSC. The explanation of the appellant is
that the caste shown in the S.S.L.C. Book is ‘Mavilan’ and
‘Nalkadaya’ was shown in Ext.P5 caste certificate on the basis
of the Apex Court decision in Punit Rai v. Dinesh
Chaudhary (2003 (8) SCC 204). Since both castes belongs
to reservation category, we have directed the PSC to consider
the matter in a lenient way. It is also stated that on the date
of application, as per the Government orders, ‘Mavilan’ is a
W.A.1315/08 2
Scheduled Tribe caste whereas ‘Nalkadaya’ is a Scheduled
Caste. As per the interim order of this Court, a statement was
filed by the PSC, which is as follows:
“It is thus respectfully submitted that in
compliance with the above said interim
order of the Division Bench, the
respondent Public Service Commission
have re-considered the whole issue and
decided to extend the reservation benefit
of SC to the petitioner/appellant and all
consequential benefits will be given to
him. The grievances of the
appellant/petitioner has thus been
redressed and the writ appeal has become
thus infructuous. Under these
circumstances, this Honourbale Court
may be pleased to dismiss the writ appeal,
as infructuous.”
That is recorded, and writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
prp
W.A.1315/08 3
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()
———————————————————
J U D G M E N T
———————————————————
26th May, 2008