IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15235 of 2009(Y)
1. RANJITH.K., AGED 24 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ANEESH.P.B., AGED 24 YEARS,
3. RATHISH K.N., AGED 23 YEARS,
4. HARISH.M.P., AGED 24 YEARS,
5. SANJITH KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS,
6. RAMESH KUMAR, AGED 21 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG TALUK,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
For Petitioner :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).15235/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioners belong to Marati community and are the residents
of Kasargode District. In 2007, PSC invited applications for
appointment to the post of Constable (Armed Police Battalion).
Petitioners applied for the post claiming benefit of OBC reservation.
They appeared for written test and physical efficiency test. They
were called upon to produce Non Creamy Layer certificates.
Applications were made, however the 1st respondent declined to
issue certificates on the ground that the petitioners are not included
in the OBC list in the State. It was thereupon the writ petition was
filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioners
be issued Non Creamy Layer certificates and given benefits
available to OBC candidates.
2. Petitioners who are the members of Marati community
residing in Kasargode District, were treated as scheduled tribes till
8.1.2003 when Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
(Amendment) Act, 2002, came into force. Subsequent to 8.1.2003,
W.P.(C).15235/09
2
there are neither treated as scheduled tribes nor are they conferred
OBC status which the Marati community residing in other areas of
the State, are enjoying.
3. The stand taken by the State Government is that inclusion of
Marati community residing in Kasargode in the list of scheduled
tribes, can only be done by the Government of India. As far as the
State Government is concerned, inclusion of a community in the
OBC list or revision of OBC list, can be done only in terms of the
provisions contained in the Kerala State Commission for Backward
Classes Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for short). Chapter III of the Act
provides that if any class of citizens claim inclusion in the list of
OBC, such claim is to be considered by the Commission and it is for
the Commission to tender its advice to the Government which is
ordinarily binding upon the Government. Similarly Section 11 of the
Act provides for the periodical revision of OBC list by the
Government. This Section also enables the Government to pass
orders including new backward classes in the list of OBC.
Therefore petitioners claiming OBC status and the benefit provided
W.P.(C).15235/09
3
to OBCs, have to pursue their claims either before the Commission
as provided under Section 9 of the Act or before the Government as
provided under Section 11 of the Act.
Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their
claim in the manner as provided in Section 9 or 11 of the Kerala
State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, this writ petition
is disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs