IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 99 of 2000(J)
1. SUNIL KRISHNAN C.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OFKERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/09/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 99 of 2000
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 19th September, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The issue involved in this original petition is as to whether the
petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste community of Hindu
Thandan or whether he is a Hindu Thiyya. The issue has a chequered
history starting from 1988. The petitioner approached this Court and
the Central Administrative Tribunal. Each time, there was a direction
to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. Ultimately, pursuant to the
directions, the Tahsildar concerned passed Ext. P8 order whereby the
petitioner’s claim for community status as a scheduled caste was
rejected. The petitioner challenged the same by filing O.P. No.
13956/1995. By judgment reported in C. Sunil Krishnan v. State of
Kerala and others, AIR 1997 Kerala 63, the original petition was
dismissed. The petitioner challenged that judgment in W.A.No.
789/1996, which was also dismissed by Ext. P12 judgment. The
petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court in
S.L.P(Civil) No. 7780/1997 in which, by Ext. R1(a) judgment, the
Supreme Court held thus:
“The order dated 5-3-1990 passed by the Tahsildar,
Palghat, rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he
belongs to Schedule Caste under Exhibit P13 has become
final. This order cannot be interfered with in an ancillary
proceeding initiated by the petitioner. Notice was issued
by the authorities in August, 1995 under Exhibit P16. In
that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court where the writ appeal stood
dismissed. The SLP is dismissed.”
The petitioner submits that Ext. P8 was confirmed by the Government
by Ext. P13 behind the back of the petitioner and therefore the same
is not binding on the petitioner. He therefore submits that the
petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove his caste status
before the scrutiny committee under The Kerala (Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates
O.P. No. 99/2000. -: 2 :-
Act, 1996 (Act 11/1996).
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State
strongly disputes the claim of the petitioner. According to him, the
Supreme Court having finally rejected the petitioner’s claim for
community status as a scheduled caste, the petitioner cannot now
again re-agitate the issue by seeking a fresh opportunity to agitate
his community status before the authorities under the said Act.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. It cannot be disputed that the Supreme Court has finally
upheld the orders of the Tahsildar and the Government holding that
the petitioner does not belong to the Thandan community and he
belongs to the Hindu Thiyya community. I do not think that after
having suffered Ext. P14 judgment, the petitioner can now seek to
re-open the whole issue by seeking an opportunity to prove his claim
for community status in accordance with the abovesaid Act.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the original petition and
accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/