High Court of KeralaDivision BenchOriginal petition dismissed

Dr. P. Leelakumari v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:OP No. 18446/1997

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Balakrishnan Nair
  • M. C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date
2008-09-17
Court Decision / Holding
Original petition dismissed; Exts. P34 and P40 upheld; Government's direction to prosecute not interfered with.
Final Disposition
Original petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dr. P. Leelakumari

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • The Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificates constituted under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 by its Chairman, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Director of Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Principal Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode
  • The Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattom, Trivandrum, by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. S.M. Prem
  • • Smt. K.P. Santhi
  • • Sri. P. Ramachandran

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Alexander Thomas, SC, KPSC Special Government Pleader
  • • Sri. Santoshkumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Dr. P. Leelakumari, an Assistant Professor in the Kerala Medical Education Service, obtained employment under the State's quota for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a caste certificate claiming membership of the Malai Arayan Scheduled Tribe. The matter was examined by a Scrutiny Committee constituted under G.O. (P) No. 16/95/SCSTDD (dated 8-5-1995). The Committee found that the petitioner's parents do not belong to the Malai Arayan tribe; her father belongs to Arayan, classified as an Other Backward Class in Kerala, and there is no definitive material to challenge the mother's purported Malai Arayan status. Based on these findings, the Government issued Ext. P40 directing prosecution for allegedly making false caste claims. The petitioner challenged Exts. P34 and P40, contending that initiating prosecution for conduct in a distant past is unsustainable. She relied on Sreekumary v. State of Kerala (2006) 1 KLT 144. The court, however, applied the paternal-caste presumption, citing Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary (2003) 8 SCC 204 and Indira v. State of Kerala (2005) 4 KLT 119 (Full Bench), noting no material to dislodge this presumption. It observed that if prosecution is ultimately launched, the petitioner can raise all legal defences; accordingly, the original petition is dismissed, and the Government's prosecution direction is not interfered with.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996G.O.(P) No. 16/95/SCSTDDG.O.(MS) 11/77/DDG.O. No. 7469/E2/93/SCSTDDG.O. No. 9RT) 1405/91/H&PWD

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Caste status in this context is ordinarily derived from the father's caste (paternal presumption).
  • If there is a prosecution, the petitioner may raise all available legal defences; lack of immediate interference with prosecution does not affect the right to challenge its validity in future proceedings.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that Ext. P40 directing prosecution for past conduct is unsustainable; reliance on Sreekumary v. State of Kerala; argues lack of reliable evidence for a fraudulent caste claim; seeks to quash prosecution and related orders; asserts that continuing prosecution over time violates fairness and legal propriety.

Contentions of Respondents

State contends that the petitioner’s caste status is governed by paternal lineage; the Scrutiny Committee’s findings are sound; the prosecution is warranted given potential false claims; cites Punit Rai and Indira v. Kerala to support paternal presumption and later actions; asserts lack of material to dislodge presumption.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary2003(8) S.C.C. 204PositiveCited to support the presumption that caste status is normally that of the father in Kerala.
Indira v. State of Kerala2005(4) K.L.T. 119PositiveCited as authority for paternal caste presumption; Full Bench decision cited for consistency.
Sreekumary v. State of Kerala2006(1) K.L.T. 144Mentioned OnlyCited by the petitioner; court did not adopt its reasoning, but acknowledged the argument.
OP. No.1416/97 (Judgment in OP No.1416/97)—Mentioned OnlyExhibit referenced; not elaborated in the reasoning.

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 Dr. P. Leelakumari v. State of Kerala and 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.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930** ## **OP.No. 18446 of 1997(U)** **----------------------------------PETITIONER:** - **------------------DR.P.LEELAKUMARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA (SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES) REGULATION OF ISSUE OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES ACT, 1996 REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, ` THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. THE PRINCIPAL MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE.** **5. THE TAHASILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **6. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR** ## **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD** **ON 17/09/2008, ALONG WITH OP NO. 8713 OF 1998 OP NO. 36678 OF 2002 AND OP.1464 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **OP. NO.18446/1997** ## **ORDER ON CMP. NO.32989/1997 IN OP. 18446/1997** ## **DISMISSED** **17/09/2008 SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE SD/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ADMISSION REGISTER RELATING TO THE PETITIONER P.LEELAKUMARI-GOVERNMENT L.P.SCHOOL THENGELY, THIRUVALLA.** **EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ADMISSION REGISTER RELATING TO P.LEELAKUMARI-TOWN MUSLIM U.P.S. HARIPAD.** **EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ADMISSION REGISTER RELATING TO P.LEELAKUMARI-GOVT. U.P.SCHOOL AROOKKUTTY.** ## **EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER RELATING TO P.PRASANNAKUMARI-GOVT. UPS AROOKUTTY.** ## **EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 11/77/DD DT. 25.1.77 RELATING TO CONCESSIONS TO CHILDREN BORN OF INTER0CASTE MARRIAGE.** **EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER P.LEELAKUMARI.** **EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DT. 18.6.1970 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR , VAIKOM.** ## **EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE RELEANT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF P.PRASANNAKUMARI.** ## **EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER RELATING TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER K.PADMAVATHY UPS THIRUMOOLAVILASAM.** **EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE RELEATN EXTRACT OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER RELATING TO A.K.CHAKRAPANI.** **EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER RELATING TO K.BHASKARAN 1937 AD)** ## **EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DT. 25.4.1955 ISSUED TO K.BHASKARAN BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHENGANASSERY.** **EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DT.12.12.1974 ISSUED TO K.BHASKARAN BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE 2ND CLASS, KANJIRAPALLY, AS PER THE SERVICE BOOK.** ## **OP. NO.18446/1997** **EXT.P14:- COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.401/93 OF THE VAIKOM POLICE STATION, AGAINST K.BHAKSARAN ON A COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT.** **EXT.P15:- COPY OF THE REFERENCE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.401/93 OF VAKKOM POLICE STATION, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VAIKKOM RELATED TO K.BHASKARAN.** **EXT.P16:- COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER OF THE LATE SRI.A.V.KUMARAN, GRAND FATHER OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P17:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 487/78, MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA DT. 4.2.1981 RELATED TO 41 PETITIONERS RELATIVES OF THE PRESENT PETITIONER.** **EXT.P18:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NOS. 2401/82-A AND 1366/82-I, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, RELATED TO SOME OF THE PETITIONERS IN OS. 487/78, DT. 21.1.1985.** **EXT.P18(a):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 12.11.87 IN OP. NO.9342/87-K.** **EXT.P19:- COPY OF THE ADVICE FOR APPOINTMENT BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION RELATED TO THE PETITIONER APPOINTMENT AS TUTOR IN MEDICINE DT. 23.7.85.** ## **EXT.P20:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS TUTOR IN MEDICINE DT. 8.8.85.** **EXT.P21:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DME REGULARISING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONR AS TUTOR IN MEDICINE DT. 3.11.86.** **EXT.P22:- COPY OF THE GOVVT. ORDER G.O.NO.9RT) 1405/91/H&PWD DT. 4.5.91 OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER RELATED TO THE PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN MEDICINE.** **EXT.P23:- COPY OF THE DIRECTION OF THE DME REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE REVISED COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DT. 7.8.91.** **EXT.P24:- COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 27.9.91.** **EXT.P25:- COPY OF THE GOVR. ORDER NO.7469/E2/93/SCST.** **EXT.P26:- COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BY P.LEELAKUMARI.** **EXT.P27:- COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE DEPUTY SECRTARY BY P.LEELAKUMARI REQUESTING FOR A CHANCE TO PERUSE THE RECORDS.** **EXT.P28:- COPY OF THE G.O.NO.7469/E2/93/SCTDD REQUIRING THE PETITIONR TO PROVIDE DETAILS AND PROOF OF RESIDENCE.** **EXT.P29:- COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P28.** ## **OP. NO.18446/1997** **EXT.P30:- COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE GOT. ORDER OF TRANSFER OF THE PETITIONER TO CALICUT MCH DT. 7.7.95.** **EXT.P31:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY 9SCSTDD) DT. 13.2.96.** ## **EXT.P32:- COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P31 DT. 30.4.96.** **EXT.P33:- COPY OF THE NOTICE BY THE CHAIRMAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF SC/ST CLAIM ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT. 7.11.96.** **EXT.P34:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION, SC, ST CLAIOM, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT. 30.11.96.** **EXT.P35:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.1416/97 BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, RELATED TO THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P36:- COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO DHANYA RAJAN, DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 3.4.97.** **EXT.P37:- COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE CONTROLLER OF ENTRANCE EXAM, ISSUED TO DHANYA RAJAN, DT. 28.5.97.** ## **EXT.P38:- COPY OF THE DIRECTION OF THE CONTROLLER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS TO DHANYA RAJAN TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE DT. 23.8.97.** ## **EXT.P39:- COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS AND EXPLANATION FILED BEFORE THE CONTROLLER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS BY DHAN RAJAN.** **EXT.P40:- COPY OF THE GOT. ORDER NO.MS. NO.76/97/SCSTDD DT. 13.8.97.** **EXT.P41:- COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ENQUIRY ISSUED BY THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, IN THE DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS DT. NIL.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.** _**/**_ **TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ** ============================== ## **O.P.NO. 18446 OF 1997** ============================ ## **Dated this the 17[th] September 2008** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Balakrishnan Nair,J.** The petitioner was an Assistant Professor in the Kerala Medical Education Service while filing this writ petition. She got employment under the State under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the strength of a caste certificate obtained by her showing that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe Community. The said claim of the petitioner that she belongs to a scheduled tribe was the subject matter of the proceedings of the scrutiny committee constituted under G.O.(P) No. 16/95/SCSTDD dated 8-5-1995. The committee found that parents of the petitioner do not belong to Malai Arayan Scheduled Tribe Community, but they are members of Arayan community, which is only an O.B.C. in the State of Kerala. The petitioner seriously disputed the finding of the scrutiny O.P.NO.18446/1997 -2- committee that her mother does not belong to Malai Arayan community. But it is an admitted position that her father is not a member of the Malai Arayan community, he is only a member of Arayan community. Based on Ext.P4, the Government issued Ext.P40 order. As per that order, the Government, inter alia, directed the prosecution of the petitioner for making false claims as to caste status. 2. Since the father of the petitioner admittedly belongs to an O.B.C.community, the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to the Schedueld Tribe Malai Arayan is plainly untenable. So, it is unnecessary to consider whether the findings of the Government that her mother does not belong to Malai Arayan is correct or not. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in **Punit Rai v** . **Dinesh Chaudhary, 2003(8)S.C.C.204** and other cases and also the decision of the Full Bench in **Indira v. State of Kerala** , **2005(4)K.L.T.119,** the caste of the petitioner is normally that of her father. No materials are produced or pleaded in the writ petition to dislodge that presumption. In view of the above position, the challenge against Exts.P34 and O.P.NO.18446/1997 -3- P40 fails. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction to prosecute the petitioner at this distance of time for having done something in the remote past is unsustainable in law. She relies on the decision of this Court in **Sreekumary v. State of Kerala,** 2006(1)K.L.T.144 . We feel that if the State finally launches any prosecution against the petitioner, she can raise all the contentions available under law by way of defence in that prosecution. In other words, the decision of the Government to prosecute her and our refusal to interfere with the same will not affect the contentions of the petitioner concerning the validity of any prosecution launched against her based on Ext.P40. Subject to the above right, the original petition is dismissed. ## **K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE** ## **M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE** **ks.** O.P.NO.18446/1997 -4- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. O.P. NO. 18446 OF 1997 ## JUDGMENT 17-9-2008 O.P.NO.18446/1997 -5- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. CRL.A.NO. 243 OF 2005 ## JUDGMENT 28-8-2008