Anugeethi v. Commissioner for Entrance Examination & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/22ND MAGHA 1934** **WA.No. 1523 of 2011 IN WP(C).23785/2011** **--------------------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C).23785/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-09-2011** **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:** **------------------------** **ANUGEETHI, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.K.AJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT JAYA NIVAS MEPPAYIL POST, VADAKARA-4, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH** **SMT.SMITHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **--------------------------** **1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE, KOZHIKODE-673 020.** **3. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF KERALA INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OOF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE KOZHIKODE-673 017.** **4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 101.** **5. THE DIRECTOR OF HARIJAN WELFARE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HARIJAN WELFARE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-02-2013, ALONG WITH WA. 1783/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA.No. 1523 of 2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE R6(a): COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS)NO.298 DATED 23.3.1961.** **ANNEXURE R6(b): COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O(MS)11//77/DD DATED 25.1.1977.** **ANNEXURE R6(c): COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS)11/2005/SCST DD TVM DATED 22.3.2005.** **ANNEXURE R6(d): COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) 25/2005/SCSTDD DATED 20.6.2005.** **ANNEXURE R6(e): COPY OF GO(MS)109/2008 SCSTDD DATED 20.11.2008.** **/TRUE COPY/** **PS TO JUDGE** ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **W.A.Nos. 1523 and 1783 of 2011** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 11[th] day of February, 2013 JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J.** The brief facts that led to the filing of W.A. No.1523 of 2011 are as under. 2. The appellant was one of the participants in the Entrance Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination both Engineering and Medical. The result of the appellant came to be withheld on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to claim the status of Vannan community. Then appellant apparently gave a detailed representation. When no decision was taken on this representation, a writ petition came to be filed in WP(C) No.18310 of 2011 which came to be disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the appellant's request. In terms of this direction again a detailed representation came to be submitted to 1[st] respondent Commissioner. However, the same came to be rejected giving reasons. As the entire future of the appellant is at _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 2 stake on account of this order of the Commissioner and future of the appellant depends upon this decision of the 1[st] Commissioner, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge by filing W.P. (C) No.23785 of 2011. That writ petition came to be rejected. 3. According to the learned Single Judge, by virtue of powers conferred under Section 6 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 enquiry was held and Ext.P18 indicates reasons for such refusal and Section 8 of the Act has no relevancy at all so far as educational institutions are concerned. The learned Judge also referred to the decision in W.P.(C) No.18310 of 2011 which resulted in Ext.P16. According to the learned Judge, if writ petitioner/appellant had any grievance that 1[st] respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examination was not competent to hold such enquiry, the petitioner should have raised such objections in the earlier writ petition. Having not done so it is not open to the appellant to raise a new contention in the present writ petition. 4. So far as Ext.P18 is concerned, the learned Judge having regard to Section 10 of the Act opines, the burden is entirely on the applicant to prove her claim for community status. Therefore in the light of Sections 6 and 10 and what is available _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 3 on record would indicate the appellant has not discharged her burden in proving that she belongs to Vannan community. The material available on record was taken into consideration by the 1[st] respondent and therefore the 1[st] respondent was justified in disposing of the matter based on the available evidence. With these observations opining that the reasoning and finding of the 1[st] respondent is not perverse, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The contentions of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Ramakumar in the appeal are, the caste status of an individual does not depend on the fact that the person was born in a particular community which accepted him or her as one of its members. He further contented that the primary document i.e. school admission register, in which caste of the candidate is recorded can be taken as an authentic and acceptable evidence to determine person's community. He also invited our attention to decisions of the Apex Court reported in **M. Chandra v, M. Thangamuthu and another** [2010 (9) SCC 712] and **Kodikunnil Suresh (alias J. Monian) v. N.S. Saji Kumar and others** [2011 (6) SCC 430]. According to the appellant, the Vigilance Officer attached to an institution under the Government has no competency to determine the caste status contrary to the _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 4 provisions of the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the statutory regulations contained in the above Act are not at all followed, therefore Ext.P18 deserves to be quashed, as the Vigilance Officer usurped the powers of scrutiny committee contrary to the provisions of the Act. Further contends, neither Ext.P13 report of the Vigilance nor Ext.P14 order of 1[st] respondent or acceptance of the same by the Commissioner is acceptable, as they are not by any competent authorities therefore they deserve to be dismissed. Making reference to Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(a), 9 and 11 of the Act, counsel submits that they are relevant. He also invites our attention to Section 2 (g); definition of expert agency. According to the learned Senior Counsel student also must be heard as it would affect the future of the entire family. With these observations he sought for setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge by allowing the writ petition. 6. As against this, the learned Advocate General took us through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also earlier judgment at Ext.P13 and the relevant documents; Exts.P14, 16 and 18. According to him, the discussion of the learned Single Judge with reference to each provision of the Act in question indicates that all grounds now raised were discussed in 5 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ detail and a reasoned judgment was pronounced by learned Single Judge which does not warrant any interference. 7. So far as W.A. No. 1783 of 2011, the appellant herein was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 25828 of 2011. The grievance of the writ petitioner was against Ext.P5 report produced in the writ petition, passed by 2[nd] respondent and consequential acceptance of the same by the 4[th] respondent wherein the caste of the appellant was declared as Chaliya(OBC) instead of Vannan(Scheduled Caste). 8. According to the appellant, her father Sri.Chandran belongs to Chaliya community and mother Smt.Ajitha belongs to Vannan community a Scheduled Caste Community. The petitioner was brought up as per the customs of Vannan community to which her mother belongs rather than Chaliya community i.e. her father's community. As per Ext.P3 in the school register her caste was registered as Vannan. When she applied for Entrance Examination for the professional degree course in 2011 her community was certified as Vannan by the 3[rd] respondent after due enquiry. Thereafter the matter was enquired by 2[nd] respondent. Without giving an opportunity to bring on record any material the learned Single Judge proceeded wrongly by opining that the appellant belongs to OBC. The _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 6 learned Single Judge was also not justified in dismissing the writ petition opining that no documents are produced before the authority. According to the appellant, no time was granted by the authorities for bringing evidence therefore there is no justification in the rejection of the writ petition and he seeks for setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He also relies on (2012) 1 SCC 333 [ **Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham and others** ]. 9. As against this, the learned Advocate General referred to paragraph 4 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He submits that ILR 2002 Kerala 263 [ **The Principal, R.E.C, Calicut and others v. C.B. Suresh Babu and another** ] and 2005(4) KLT 119 [ **Indira v. State of Kerala** ] referred to by the learned Single Judge are relevant. With these averments he had sought for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 10. In the case of **Dayaram** (supra) the directions given in the case of **Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others** [(1994) 6 SCC 241] case came up for consideration. Their Lordships reaffirming the guidelines and necessity for such guidelines held; the very purpose of such guidelines was to see that genuine candidates are not denied admissions to the educational institutions or appointments to different posts in the _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 7 State for want of social status certificate. It was further held, the guidelines were issued to streamline the procedure for issuance of caste certificate, their scrutiny and approval. The issuance of caste certificate was to eliminate ineligible or spurious candidates gaining entry to educational institutions or appointments with false certificates apart from resorting to dilatory tactics by putting obstructions in the completion of inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee regarding their social status. As there was vacuum on account of absence of any law to protect and enforce socioeconomic rights of citizens, the Supreme Court has invariably stepped in and evolved new mechanism to protect and enforce such rights to achieve justice. Therefore they reaffirmed the exercise of power by the Apex Court in _Madhuri Patil's_ case(supra) under Article 32 r/w Article 142 to fill the void in the absence of suitable legislation to cover the field. It was further held that the power to declare law carries with it and within the limits, the duty to make law when none exits. The directions 1 to 15 issued in _Madhuri Patil_ 's case(supra) by exercising power under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution were held as valid and laudable to ensure that only genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates secure the benefits of reservation and candidates with bogus certificates are kept out of it. It was further clarified that _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 8 this exercise was done taking over the functions of legislature only to step in till legislature chooses to make appropriate law. It was held that there was nothing irregular nor improper in _Madhuri Pattil_ 's case(supra) opining that report of Scrutiny Committee constituted as per scheme laid down therein could be challenged only under Article 226 of the Constitution and not by way of suit or other proceedings. The Scrutiny Committee being the creature of law as laid down in _Madhuri Pattil_ 's case(supra) and the procedure for verification and passing of appropriate orders by the Scrutiny Committee is also provided. The litigation arising from the Scheme is formulated by a decision of the Supreme Court and not under statute. When the scheme formulated by the decision of Supreme Court is to be considered as a statute, obviously the scheme can expressly or impliedly bar cognizance of suits. Paragraphs 34 and 35 are relevant for the above appeals as they deal with the enquiry to be conducted by the Scrutiny Committee and the Vigilance cell report(KIRTADS) which reads as under: “ _34. Each Scrutiny Committee has a vigilance cell which acts as the investigating wing of the committee. The core function of the Scrutiny Committee, in verification of caste certificates, is the investigation carried on by its vigilance cell. When an application for verification of the caste certificate is_ 9 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ _received by the Scrutiny Committee, its vigilance cell investigates into the claim, collects the facts, examines the records, examines the relations or friend and persons who have knowledge about the social status of the candidate and submits a report to the committee. If the report supports the claim for caste status, there is no hearing and the caste claim is confirmed. If the report of the vigilance cell discloses that the claim for the social status claimed by the candidate was doubtful or not genuine, a show cause notice is issued by the committee to the candidate. After giving due opportunity to the candidate to place any material in support of his claim and after making such enquiry as it deems expedient, the Scrutiny Committee and considers the claim for caste status and the vigilance cell report, as also any objections that may be raised by any opponent to the claim of the candidate for caste status, and pass appropriate orders._ _35. The Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a court or tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions of administrative authorities, the orders of the Scrutiny Committee are also open to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals and further appeals would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils which this Court wanted to eradicate. As this Court found that a large number or seats or posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were being taken away by bogus candidates claiming to belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, this Court directed the constitution of such Scrutiny Committees, to provide an expeditious, effective and efficacious remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal framework for proper verification of false claims regarding SCs/STs status. This entire scheme in_ 10 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ _Madhuri Patil will only continue till the legislature concerned makes an appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status as SC/ST and issue of caste certificates, or in regard to verification of caste certificates already obtained by candidates who seek the benefit of reservation, relying upon such caste certificates._ ” 11. In _Dayaram_ 's case(supra) their Lordships had an occasion to consider the determination of the caste of offspring in an inter-caste marriage or marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal as determination of caste of such offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis of facts adduced in each case. There could be different facts and circumstances in each case. In all cases women need not take caste from the husband is the law laid down. The reasoning for such conclusion was in several incidents where women being widowed and in the result she goes back to her community for shelter along with the offspring who is brought up as the member of that community, therefore attending facts of each case has to be looked into. The presumption that child has the caste of father in intercaste marriage or marriage between a tribal and a non tribal can be rebutted by leading evidence to show that he or she was brought up by the mother who belongs to SC/ST. They must show that they did not have the advantage of enjoying the benefits being _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 11 born to a forward caste father. They must on the contrary establish that they suffered deprivations humiliations, disabilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his or her mother belongs to. Over and above this, they must also establish that he or she was treated as a member of the community to which her mother belongs to, not only by that community but far outside the community as well. ## 12. In the case of **Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure** ## **v. State of Maharashtra and others** reported in (1996) 3 SCC 685 their Lordships had an occasion to consider the role of authorities concerned in checking the veracity of the claim of a person belonging to SC or ST. It was held, burden of proof of such claim is always on the person claiming such Certificate. They emphasise the need of greater care before granting or rejecting any claim for caste certificate. 13. In the case of **Indira** (supra), a Full Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider relevant issues with reference to caste certificates as cited above. Referring to _Punit Rai_ 's case, _Chandramohan_ 's case, _Sobha Hymavath_ i's case and _Valsamma Paul_ 's case their Lordships proceeded to say they were dealing with a separate class of persons i.e. children born to intercaste married couple, of which either the father or mother belongs to a _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 12 nonscheduled caste/scheduled tribe category. While saying so for getting the existing benefits as provided under Article 15(4), 16 (4) and 16(4A), there may not be difficulty, but the question is whether their offsprings were subjected to the same disabilities attached to SC/ST. In that case the claimant had to prove that he was being brought up as SC/ST either by the mother or father and were suffering handicaps and disadvantages being born as a member of SC/ST. 14. In the case of **the Principal, R.E.C., Calicut and others v. C.B. Suresh Babu and another** reported in 2002(1) ILR 263(Kerala Series) the findings of Vigilance cell (KIRTADS) after examining all the relevant records led to the opinion that Kavara/Gavara caste is not Scheduled Caste and they are not entitled for the benefit of the same. Action came to be initiated against the appellants/writ petitioners on the basis of the report of KIRTADS. This came to be challenged in the Original Petition. Learned Single Judge allowed their petition rejecting the report of KIRTADS. When the matters came up for consideration before the Division Bench, it was held that the report of KIRTADS that in States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala the members of the petitioners families or their near relatives were treated as caste of Naidus. Educationally and economically Naidu Community is an advanced _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 13 community but Kavara and Gavara community which is recognised as Scheduled Caste of Kerala were treated as untouchables. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they belong to either Kavara/Gavara community which is a Scheduled Caste of Kerala. 15. During the arguments learned Advocate General placed emphasis on _Kumari Madhuri Patil_ 's case(supra) to substantiate State's stand that evidence regarding offspring to any caste status of a person is very relevant for issuance of social status certificate; Anthropoligical and Genealogical report of KIRTADS is the procedure relevant for determining the caste of the person; findings of verification committee based on evidence before it cannot be interfered by Court unless findings are vitiated by error of law or non application of mind to the relevant facts and material. The High Court under Article 226 not being a court of appeal, cannot re-appreciate evidence is the contention of Advocate General. 16. He also placed reliance on **Bijumon v. Commissioner for Entrance Examination** [1993 (2) KLT 1074]. While reaffirming the fact that only the member of the caste specified in the Presidential Notification alone is entitled to be treated as Scheduled Caste candidates born of parents, one of _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 14 whom is a member of SC or ST can be treated as a person belonging to SC and ST provided that, the candidate should have been treated as a member of Scheduled Caste despite intercaste marriage of his parents. The law laid down in this decision was Parliament alone can exercise the powers under Article 341(2) of the Constitution and the State by its executive orders cannot say that so and so should be treated as Scheduled Caste. 17. Bearing in mind the principles laid down in the above cases one has to see the provisions of law under the Act of 1996. Section 2 deals with definitions. Section 2(g) deals with 'Expert Agency'. Section 2(n) deals with 'Scrutiny Committee'. Section 3 deals with proof of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Status by a person who claims such status by producing a certificate issued for the purpose under the Act by the competent authority in the prescribed manner. Section 4 deals with application for Community Certificates. Section 5 says who has to issue community certificates. Section 6 deals with constitution of Scrutiny Committee for verification of community certificates for admission to educational institutions which reads as under: “ _**6** ._ _**Constitution of Screening Committee for verification of Community Certificate** .-(1) The applications from members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for admission to the seats reserved for the Scheduled_ 15 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ _Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions shall be got scrutinised by a Screening Committee constituted by Government in the prescribed manner, to ensure that the Community Certificate produced in support of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe claim of the applicant is genuine._ _(2) The Screening Committee may cause detailed enquiry through the expert agency to ascertain if the applicant actually belongs to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, and shall reject the application if the applicant does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe as claimed by him:_ _Provided that rejection of the application shall be without prejudice to the actions that may be taken under sections 11, 15 and 16._ ” 18. Section 6A refers to cancellation of community Certificate issued earlier. Section 7 is another stage where further verification of community Certificate could be done by the head of educational institution or any officer in case of appointment. Section 8 refers to Constitution of Scrutiny Committee for verification of Community Certificates. Sections 7 and 8 read as under: “ _**7** ._ _**Further verification of Community**_ _**Certificates** .- Production of a community certificate issued by the Competent Authority shall not preclude the appointing authority, or head of the educational institution or any officer or authority superior to the appointing authority or head of the educational institution including the State Government, from verifying or causing to be verified the claim of an_ 16 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ _individual that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be at the time of initial appointment, selection or admission or at any stage thereafter._ _8._ _**Constitution of Scrutiny Committee for verification of Community Certificates** .- The Government shall constitute a scrutiny committee for verification of community certificates. Any person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or any appointing authority or local body or heads of educational institutions may make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the scrutiny committee for verification of Community Certificates._ ” ## 19. Section 9 contemplates enquiry by Expert Agency which reads as under: “ _**9. Enquiry by Expert Agency.** - (1) The expert agency may conduct such enquiries as it may deem fit into the claim of an individual or group of individuals that he or they belong or belongs to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe in the following circumstances.-_ _(i) Suo motu enquiries on the basis of field studies on castes communities, or tribes: or as a part of or auxiliary to Anthropological or Sociological Studies or investigations._ _(ii)On petitions and complaints being received by it, from any source pertaining to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, claims of non-Scheduled Castes or non-Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be._ _(iii) On references, requisitions, directions or proposals being received from the State and Central Governments, the competent authorities or the Screening Committee or the Scrutiny Committee._ 17 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ _[(2) The report of the Expert Agency shall be conclusive proof for or against the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes claim, as the case may be, of the person reported upon, unless found contrary by the Scrutiny Committee, after due procedure]_ _(3) The person reported upon shall be entitled for a copy of the report of the Expert Agency, if he desires so, free of cost from the authority authorising the enquiry._ ” 20. Section 10 deals with burden of proof i.e. who has to establish the claim. It says the claimant who seeks issuance of a community certificate has to establish that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Reading of all these provisions of the Act clearly indicate, it is not one but several checks are laid down in order to see that genuine candidates alone will get the benefit of status certificate excluding various certificates brought by the claimants. Section 6 provides screening of these certificates at the first instance and by way of check, the community certificates can be subjected to further verification by head of the educational institutions or appointing authority etc. as contemplated under Section 7. 21. The Scrutiny Committee is constituted by the Government under a statute for verification of community certificate. The Expert Agency like Vigilance Cell(KIRTHADS) is empowered to make an enquiry. It is well settled that on _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 18 available information the opinion formed which is not acceptable to reasonable mind can always be interfered with. The competent authority who issues caste certificate has to be careful in assessing the facts and circumstances claimed by the claimant and reported by the expert agency. Any perversity in such assessment is subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The enquiry report from the expert agency can be sought either by screening committee or by the scrutiny committee. For all practical purposes prima facie the report of expert agency is conclusive proof so far as its opinion unless such opinion is a result of perversity. 22. In W.A.No.1523 of 2011 the matter was reconsidered as per Exhibit P18 proceedings. The appellant participated in the Entrance Examination, but on account of pendency of enquiry into the caste status, her results were withheld. Her claim was forwarded for an enquiry by the third respondent Vigilance Officer and a report was submitted at Exhibit P13. There is clear finding at Exhibit P13 that the appellant was not brought up as a member of Vannan community, hence her claim was recommended to be turned down. The first respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examination accepted the report and issued Exhibit P14 order after referring to all the _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 19 relevant facts pertaining to the controversy before him. In the earlier round of litigation, W.P(C).No.18310 of 2011, a direction was issued for reconsideration of the matter by the first respondent taking into account the material to be produced by the appellant. In pursuance of this direction, fresh order came to be passed as per Exhibit P18 by the first respondent. 23. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar arguing for the appellant categorically contends that the enquiry conducted by the third respondent is invalid, as the third respondent lacks jurisdiction to conduct such enquiry in terms of the above Act. According to them, only an expert agency as contemplated in Section 9 of the Act could have conducted enquiry, therefore, challenges the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer saying it deserves to be rejected. As already stated above, Section 9 of the Act contemplates enquiry by an Expert Agency and Section 2(g) of the Act defines who is an Expert Agency, which reads as under: _“(g) 'Expert Agency' means an officer or team of officers belonging to the anthropological Wing in the Kerala - Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (KIRTADS) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department of the Government, entrusted with the research, training and developmental studies of the_ 20 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ _Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 9 and perform such other duties under the control of the Deputy Director (Anthropology) who shall function as the Vigilance Officer of the Vigilance Cell;”_ 24. Perusal of definition of 'Expert Agency' defined at Section 2(g) of the Act indicates an officer of KIRTADS, who is empowered to exercise powers under Section 9(1) of the Act, is also an Expert Agency within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. Therefore, the third respondent Vigilance Officer is an officer of KIRTADS and the enquiry conducted by him is within the parameters of Section 9 of the Act, if the definition of 'Expert Agency' is taken into consideration. It was also argued that Scrutiny Committee alone should have verified the proceedings and not the first respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examination. On this basis, Exhibit P18 is challenged. This is also incorrect in view of constitution of Scrutiny Committee for verification of community certificates with reference to educational institutions, which is already quoted above. Therefore, one has to see whether Exhibit P18 is the outcome of proceedings exercised by an authorised officer under the Act to conduct an enquiry as envisaged under the Act. 21 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 25. Reading of several relevant paragraphs of the proceedings at Exhibit P18, which are referred to in the judgment of the learned Single Judge clearly indicate, there is application of mind by the officer, who passed Exhibit P18 by virtue of powers conferred upon him under Section 6 of the Act based on a report of Expert Agency, i.e., third respondent, as the matter in question pertains to educational institutions. Relevant paragraphs of Exhibit P18 read as under: “The father of the petitioner, Ajayakumar is an offspring of intercaste married couple of which his father belonged to Nair and mother to Vannan community. He married Sheeba, who is also an offspring of inter-caste married couple of which her father belonged to Protestant Christian and mother to Nair community. In the SSLC of candidate's mother, caste is shown as Hindu Nair. So it has been considered that the candidate and her parents had affinity towards upper caste. Candidate has claimed SC status only through her paternal grand mother. Hence the petitioner being the 2[nd] generation has no claim for SC reservation. xx xx xx The Ext.P4 i.e, the Proceedings of the Tahsildar, Vatakara has no relevance for second generation issue. Ext.P5 community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Vatakara has already been subjected to scrutiny by KIRTADS and furnished recommendations against it. 22 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ The Certificate issued by Mannan Vannan Samudaya Sangham, Vatakara Taluk Committee(Ext.P6), NSS Karayogam, Meepayil Vatakara (Ext.P7) and the Certificate issued by the Chairman Vatakara Municipality (Ext.P8) cannot be accepted as these are issued by non-governmental agencies and its genuineness cannot be proved. The Ext.P14 letter is relating to the caste status of the father of the candidate. Being 1[st] generation it has no relevance in deciding the caste of the petitioner who belong to the 2[nd] generation. The SC/ST claim arises by virtue of the provisions in Article 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India. It doesn't entitle an offspring of 2[nd] generation (inter-caste married couple) the Constitutional benefit.” 26. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Section 8 of the Act alone is applicable and not Section 6 of the Act. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge rightly pointed out that in the earlier round of litigation, which is at Exhibit P16, no such controversy came to be raised by the appellant herein. As a matter of fact, in pursuance of the direction at Exhibit P16, the first respondent proceeded with the matter and passed order afresh at Exhibit P18. 27. Then coming to the facts of the present case, as already referred to in the above judgments what has to be seen is, whether the appellant was accepted by Vannan community 23 _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ with reference to grand-mother's community or not. Proceedings at Exhibit P18 reflects what exactly is the factual situation. 28. Though the appellant has brought on record several materials in the earlier round of litigation and also subsequent round of litigation, ultimately she is not able to discharge the burden in proving her case as required under Section 10 of the Act. There cannot be two opinions so far as Section 10 of the Act, wherein it clearly envisages that burden of proof is on the person, who claims community status. As already stated above, perusal of Exhibit P18 would clearly indicate, appellant was unable to produce any further evidence to accept her contention that she belongs to Vannan community. There is no arbitrary or irrational exercise of mind on the part of the first respondent in concluding that the documents placed before him were unreliable and were insufficient to conclude finding in favour of the appellant. 29. Then coming to W.A.No.1783 of 2011, this is also a case where the appellant claimed special status as Scheduled Caste Vannan community, when she applied for Entrance Examination. The second respondent was directed to enquire in terms of the Act. The second respondent, after conducting enquiry, submitted Exhibit P5 report for a decision to the fourth _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 24 respondent. Fourth respondent passed Exhibit P6 rejecting the application of the appellant. Therefore, both Exhibit P5 report and Exhibit P6 proceedings of the fourth respondent came to be challenged. In the present case the material reflected at Exhibit P5 report reads as under: “Here, in the present case the candidate's Scheduled Caste status rests on the caste status of his mother only while her paternal grandparents and father belong to Hindu Saliya community, which included in the OBC list of the State. The candidate is born and brought up in the social circumstance of her father's community and she is away from the cultural background of the Scheduled Caste Vannan Community of her mother and has not suffered the social disabilities of being a member of Scheduled Caste community. Now the candidate is living as a member of Saliya community. Thus, the candidate's claim SC Vannan status is against the facts as he has not been 'subjected to the same social disabilities and also following the same customs and traditions' of the Sche.Caste community. Here, in this case the candidate has never suffered the disabilities of a Scheduled caste person. The _enquiry_ as per Act 11 of 1996 reveal that she does not even fulfill the criteria stipulated in GO(MS) 109 SCSTDD dated 20.11.2008 to consider her as a member of Scheduled caste community. In fact, based on the above observations the candidate Scheduled caste community claim cannot be conceded.” _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 25 30. Exhibit P5 quoted above indicates that the appellant did not suffer any disability or disadvantage of Scheduled Caste person belonging to Vannan community. On the other hand, she was found to be brought up as a member of community of her father. Several documents came to be produced at Exhibits P8 and P9 series. The said documents cannot be sustained legally especially in the light of these documents coming into existence subsequent to the report of the second respondent at Exhibit P5. As held in several judgments referred to above, unless there is evidence indicating that the offspring of intercaste marriage suffered disabilities and disadvantages faced by Scheduled Castes, they cannot have benefits. Merely the appellant happens to be an offspring of intercaste marriage between two persons, one of them belongs to Scheduled Caste, automatically there cannot be conferment of Scheduled Caste status on her. 31. In the light of the observations with reference to other appeal on the proceedings pertaining to the appellant herein, one cannot find fault with the proceedings at Exhibit P6 by the fourth respondent and the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in accepting the report at Exhibits P5 and P6. _**WA.1523 & 1783/11**_ 26 In view of the above discussion and reasoning, we are of the opinion, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. **MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE** **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** ttb/vgs