IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 26146 of 1999(K)
1. T.P.RAVEENDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/05/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
O.P.No.26146 of 1999
==================
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Tahsildar. He issued a community
certificate to the 7th respondent stating that the 7th respondent
belongs to Malai Araya community which is a recognised
Scheduled Tribe in the State of Kerala. In respect of the caste
status of the 7th respondent there was an enquiry by the
KIRTADS, which resulted in Ext.P4 order of the scrutiny
committee as provided under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates
Act, 1996. In the report of the scrutiny committee, after finding
that the 7th respondent does not belong to the Malai Araya
community, the scrutiny committee severely criticized the action
of the petitioner in issuing the community certificate to the 7th
respondent and went on to hold that the petitioner deliberately
did it to unjustly help the 7th respondent to get admission to the
General Nursing and Midwifery Course under the Scheduled Tribe
quota. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and seeks the
o.p.26146/99 2
following reliefs in this original petition:
“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
direction quashing the original of Ext.P4.
ii) issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents 1 to 6 from
taking any action against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4.”
2. The petitioner’s contention is that he issued the caste
certificate bona fide relying on Ext.P1 report of the Tahsildar,
Meenachil. He would submit that at the relevant time, as per
Ext.P2 Government order, the Government had directed that the
principles enumerated in G.O.(Ms.).No.298/61/Rev. dated
23.3.1961, shall be adopted for determining the caste of the
children born to inter-caste marriages for all purposes, according
to which, such children will be treated as belonging to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe, if either of the parents belongs to that
community. The petitioner would submit that the 7th respondent
was an offspring born in an inter-caste married couple, of which
the mother was a Malai Araya. It is pointed out by the counsel
for the petitioner that in Ext.P4 the fact that the mother of the
7th respondent was a member of Malai Araya community had
been confirmed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is
that there was absolutely no occasion for the scrutiny committee
o.p.26146/99 3
to make observations against the petitioner.
3. The counsel for the petitioner points out that in any
event, Ext.P4 in this writ petition was challenged by the 7th
respondent in O.P.No.26506/1999, wherein the claim of the 7th
respondent for being treated as Scheduled Tribe was upheld and
on that basis, admission given to the 7th respondent was
regularised, although in that judgment it was made cleat that if
the 7th respondent makes any further claim for employment or
admission to another course on the ground that she belongs to
Scheduled Tribe, the respondents would be free to deal with the
same independently without being fettered by that judgment. In
view of the above factual situation, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would seek quashing of the observations of the
scrutiny committee in Ext.P4 and to restrain respondents 1 to 6
from taking any action against the petitioner on the basis of
Ext.P4.
4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
5. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case.
Therefore, I must accept the averments of the petitioner in the
original petition as true and correct. Ext.P1 is the communication
o.p.26146/99 4
from the Tahsildar, Meenachil, to the Tahsildar Nilambur, which
certifies that the forefathers of the 7th respondent belonged to the
Scheduled Tribe, Hindu Malai Araya. In Ext.P2 Government order
it is made clear that the children born in inter-caste marriages
would be treated as members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe community if either of the parents belongs to that
community. From Ext.P4 report of the scrutiny committee it is
clear that the father of the 7th respondent belongs to Marthoma
Christian community and the mother of the 7th respondent was a
member of Malai Araya community. Therefore, it cannot now be
disputed that at the relevant time, Ext.P2 Government order was
holding the field, according to which, the action of the petitioner
in issuing a caste certificate to the 7th respondent showing her as
Hindu Malai Araya could not have been faulted. In any event,
since by the judgment in O.P.No.26506/1999 dated 5.8.2005 the
claim of the 7th respondent for admission for General Nursing
Course as a Scheduled Tribe had been accepted, the petitioner’s
stand in the matter has been vindicated. For that reason also, no
action can now be initiated against the petitioner on the basis of
the observations in Ext.P4 against him. In the above
o.p.26146/99 5
circumstances, I allow this original petition and hold that the
observations in Ext.P4 report of the scrutiny committee against
the petitioner cannot be held against him for any purpose. No
proceedings whatsoever shall be initiated against the petitioner
on the basis of the observations against him in Ext.P4 report.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
o.p.26146/99 6
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
===============
O.P.No.26146 of 1999-K
===============
J U D G M E N T
30th May, 2008
o.p.26146/99 7