High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-07-13Writ petition dismissed; liberty to approach Sc...

Athira M.V. v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 24839 of 2010 (D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2015-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Scrutiny Committee within one month from the certified copy of the judgment. If the Scrutiny Committee’s decision goes against her, the consequences will follow, including possible withdrawal of any benefits already availed on the basis of provisional certificates.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; liberty to approach Scrutiny Committee within one month; provisional benefits may be reversed if Scrutiny Committee decides against the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Athira M.V.

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations
The Tahasildar, Vaikom Taluk Office
The Director, School of Medical Education, Mahatma Gandhi University, Gandhi Nagar, Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. A. Abdul Jabbar

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Laly Vincent (Special Government Pleader)
• Sri Varughese M. Easo (Senior Counsel)
• Sri T. A. Shaji (Senior Counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Athira M.V., aged 18, is the daughter of K.R. Radhamany and sought a caste certificate declaring her as belonging to the Mala-Arayan (Hindu Mala-Arayan) Scheduled Tribe through her mother in an inter-caste marriage with the father belonging to Hindu-Dheevara. She challenged the denial of her caste status for admission to professional degree courses in 2009, after the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations doubted her claim, and the matter was referred for expert Anthropological opinion under the Kerala Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996. KIRTADS prepared an Anthropological report which indicated that the 2009 admission under the ST quota would be contrary to her claimed status. Despite this, the Screening Committee admitted her ST status for 2009, but she did not secure admission that year. In the following year, a similar dispute arose; interim relief enabled her to pursue B.Sc. Nursing and later B.Sc. Forestry, with the understanding that any benefit would depend on the writ petition outcome. The court observed that under Section 9(2) of the Act the expert agency’s report is conclusive on the ST/SC claim, and the Screening Committee cannot override it. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind was cited to hold that completion of the degree cannot be disqualified. The court ultimately dismissed the petition with liberty for the petitioner to approach the Scrutiny Committee within one month, with the caveat that benefits already availed may be withdrawn if the Scrutiny Committee’s order goes against her,”

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996Section 6 of the ActSection 9 of the ActSection 9(2) of the Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that she is Mala-Arayan by matrilineal lineage through her mother and seeks recognition under the ST category for admissions to professional courses. The Anthropological report (KIRTADS) was adverse to her caste claim for 2009; yet the Screening Committee initially accepted her ST status for 2009, though she did not gain admission that year. She argues that Section 9(2) makes the expert report conclusive and that the Scrutiny Committee is the proper forum to decide the caste status. She completed the graduate course and should not be disentitled, and any provisional benefits granted should be retained only until Scrutiny Committee custody resolves the matter. She requests that the court direct a fair consideration for the next year and to uphold her legitimate admission rights while ensuring restitution if the Scrutiny Committee adjudicates against her.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that under the Regulation Act and Section 9(2), the expert agency’s report is binding and cannot be overridden by the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee’s 2009 acceptance does not override the expert determination and does not guarantee admission; any decision must come from the Scrutiny Committee. They contend that the petitioner cannot be allowed to acquire or retain a seat or provisional benefits in contravention of the expert report, pending Scrutiny Committee action. The court should preserve the integrity of the expert determination and direct the petitioner to seek resolution from the Scrutiny Committee; meanwhile, the petition should be dismissed to prevent arbitrary grant of ST status without proper scrutiny.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Maharashtra v. Milind and other	2001(1) SCC 4	Positive	The Supreme Court decision is cited to support that completion of the course cannot be undone and that the petitioner cannot be disentitled from the qualification; the High Court relies on this precedent to permit continuation of benefits while the matter is resolved by the Scrutiny Committee.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Athira M.V. v. State of Kerala & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2015/22ND ASHADHA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 24839 of 2010 (D)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** **----------------------** **ATHIRA M.V., D/O. K.R. RADHAMANY, AGED 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANASSERIL HOUSE, POLASSERY VAIKOM, PIN - 686 141.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** ## **3. THE TAHASILDAR,** **TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** ## **4. THE DIRECTOR** **SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 008.** **R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SNT. LALY VINCENT R4 BY ADVS. SRI.VARUGHESE M. EASO, SC SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **WP(C).No. 24839 of 2010 (D)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THASILDAR, VAIKOM EXT.P2 COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. GO(MS) 25/05/SC/ST/DD. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO. 109/SC ST DD.** **EXT.P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5134/2009 OF THIIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P7 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUEDE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD FOR ENGINEERING /MEDICAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 2010 TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P10 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM THE DIRECTORATE OF KIRTHADS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE SPECIAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATION.** **EXT.P12 COPY OF THE ADMISSION COUNSELING MEMO CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P13 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CASTE CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **(Contd...)** **WP(C).No. 24839 of 2010 (D)** **EXT.P14 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY KERALA MALA ARAYA SABHA. EXT.P15 COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY MALA ARAYA KSHETHRA SAMRKSHANA SAMITHI.** **EXT.P16 COPY OF VIVAKA PATHIRIKA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER BY HER SABHA.** **EXT.P17 COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE I COPY OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL REPORT NO. V.25/09 REG. ST-13 DATED 21.5.2009.** **ANNEXURE II COPY OF ORDER OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE NO.B3 650/09/CEE (87) DATED 15.6.2009.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **Mn** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ## **===================== W.P.(C) No.24839 of 2010 - D ====================== Dated this the 13[th] day of July, 2015** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner was not being issued with a caste certificate, showing her, as a person belonging to Hindu Mala- Arayan community, which is admittedly a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner is the of an inter-caste where the father is progeny marriage, Hindu-Dheevara and the mother a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner's claim is with respect to her belonging in the mother's community. 2. The petitioner had applied for the professional degree courses in the Entrance Examination conducted in 2009. The petitioner's caste status was doubted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination and the same is referred for expert opinion under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) **2** W.P.(C) No.24839 of 2010 - D Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996. An Anthropological report was prepared by the Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies (KIRTADS), the authority constituted under the Act. The KIRTADS by Annexure 1 Anthropological report specifically found that the application of the petitioner for the professional degree courses 2009 against the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe of Kerala State may be rejected. However, it is seen that despite such an Anthropological report, the Screening Committee admitted the petitioner's status as a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner however did not obtain any admission in the said year. 3. In the subsequent year, also the very same dispute arose and the petitioner was admittedly not permitted to be considered under the Scheduled Tribe quota. The petitioner obtained an interim order in the above writ petition and the petitioner was admitted to the B.Sc. Nursing course and subsequently she moved to the B.Sc Forestry course. 4. The petitioner has completed her course. In fact it **3** W.P.(C) No.24839 of 2010 - D is to be noticed that on 16.08.2010 when she was granted an interim order, the petitioner has specifically submitted before Court that any benefit obtained by the petitioner on the basis of the provisional certificate issued would ultimately depend upon determination of the writ petition. Subsequently when appearing for an interview to the Plantation Corporation of Kerala, the petitioner was again directed to be issued with a provisional certificate by an interim order dated 25.03.2015. The petitioner would on the ground of the Screening Committee having accepted her case in 2009 and subsequent action of the KIRTADS in calling her for special training, on the basis that she is a Scheduled Tribe, contend that the petitioner's caste as a Mala-Arayan is undisputed. 5. This Court is of the view that no such assumption can be made on the basis of the subsequent action of the KIRTADS or on the basis of the action of the Screening Committee in having accepted her caste status in the year 2009. As to the Screening Committees; orders under the Act of 1996 by **4** W.P.(C) No.24839 of 2010 - D virtue of Section 6, the said Committee does not have the power to consider the report submitted by the expert agency. The enquiry by the expert agency is as per Section 9 of the Act of 1996. Section 9(2) of the Act of 1996 makes the report of the expert agency conclusive proof for or against the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe claim. Any interference can only be made by the Scrutiny Committee as is again provided in Section 9(2) of the Act of 1996. 5. In such circumstance, the Anthropological report of the petitioner stands against the petitioner. The acceptance of the caste status of the petitioner by the Screening Committee for the year 2009 is of no consequence. The Screening Committee could not have deferred or found against the report of the expert agency. In any event the petitioner did not get admission in the said year. The petitioner's present writ petition is on the basis of the admissions sought in the next year, which was also declined for the very same reason. It could not have been otherwise, since the Anthropological report of the KIRTADS was against the **5** W.P.(C) No.24839 of 2010 - D petitioner and it stood in the way of the petitioner's consideration as a Scheduled Tribe. Necessarily, the petitioner would have to move the Scrutiny Committee for appropriate orders. 6. Considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in **State of Maharashtra** v. **Milind and other [2001(1) SCC4]** , the petitioner having completed the graduate course cannot be disentitled from the said qualification. However any concession in fees availed of from the State would have to be refunded, if the petitioner's application before the Scrutiny Committee goes against her. The petitioner's appointment, if any, obtained on the basis of the provisional certificate issued by virtue of an interim order dated 25.03.2015, would also be subject to such decision of the Scrutiny Committee. 7. In such circumstance, the writ petition would stand dismissed however with liberty left to the petitioner to approach the Scrutiny Committee. This Court would not speak on the **6** W.P.(C) No.24839 of 2010 - D merits of the matter since that remedy is still available to the petitioner. The petitioner shall approach the Scrutiny Committee within one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. If not, the petitioner's caste status will stand concluded as per Annexure-1 Anthropological report of the KIRTADS. Any benefit availed of by the petitioner on the basis of the provisional certificate would also stand withdrawn. However, if the petitioner approaches the Scrutiny Committee within the time specified, the authorities shall wait for the orders to be passed by the Scrutiny Committee and if the same goes against the petitioner, necessary consequences would follow. The writ petition would stand dismissed. **Sd/-** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.