K.K. Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 12639 OF 2019`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` K.K.VELAYUDHAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O.LATE K.KUNJU,RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEPURA HOUSE,PILAPPULLI,PARUTHIPULLY.P.O, PALAKKAD-678573. BY ADVS. M.R.ANISON SMT.V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD) SMT.P.A.RINUSA SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.` - `2 THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES,` - `REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.` - `3 THE VIGILANCE CELL OF THE KERALA INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH , TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES,(KIRTADS) REP.BY ITS VIGILANCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS,KOZHIKODE-673017.` - `4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD-678001.` - `5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001.` - `6 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,ALATHUR-678541.` - `7 THE ORDINANCE FACTORY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, TAMIL NADU-620016.` ``` BY ADV SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA ``` WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 2 : ``` SPL.GP - LATHA THANKAPPAN, DSG - S.MANU ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 3 : ## **VIJU ABRAHAM , J. =========================== WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 ============================ Dated this the 3[rd] day of August, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts P3, P4, P5, P6, P8, P12, P13 and P15. 2. Petitioner belongs to Thandan community which is a scheduled caste throughout the State of Kerala and the fact that the petitioner’s family members belong to Thandan community could be revealed from various documents including Exts P1 and P2 caste certificate issued by the 6[th] respondent. Petitioner was recruited as an apprentice in the 7[th] respondent factory in general quota and was absorbed in the regular post of Machinist-B w.e.f. 01.04.1982. Consequently he was promoted to various posts and was working as Junior Works Manager at the time of filing of the writ petition. 3. On 04.05.1998, petitioner submitted an application before the 6[th] respondent requesting to issue community certificate to the petitioner’s daughter showing her caste status as ‘Thandan’. The said application was rejected by Ext P3 order, holding that the applicant does not belongs to Thandan community, but belongs ‘Thiyya’ which is an OBC community. Ext P3 was challenged in appeal which was also rejected by Ext P4. Challenging Ext P4, a revision was WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 4 : preferred as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Kerala (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996. While so, Ext P4 show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner submitted a detailed written explanation. Thereafter, Ext P6 order was issued wherein it is intimated that until and unless Ext P4 order is cancelled or withdrawn, petitioner’s claim for caste status as ‘Thandan’ cannot be accepted. 4. Exts P5 and P6 orders were challenged before this Court filing O.P. No. 13634/2002 which was disposed of as per Ext P7 judgment dated 28.05.2002 directing the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders on the revision petition submitted by the petitioner. While so, the 3[rd] respondent directed the petitioner to appear before him for a caste status enquiry, consequent to which the petitioner appeared and produced various documents to substantiate his caste status. Thereafter, Ext P8 anthropological report was prepared by the 3[rd] respondent, the Vigilance Cell of the KIRTADS. On receipt of Ext P8 report a detailed explanation was given by the petitioner as per Ext P9 in which 50 documents were produced to prove his caste status as Thandan. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent directed the petitioner to appear for caste status enquiry. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext P10 application requesting to furnish the name and address of the persons from whom the 3[rd] respondent allegedly collected evidence regarding the petitioner’s caste status and for a permission WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 5 : to cross-examine those persons and the officers of the 3[rd] respondent who conducted the enquiry. Petitioner further produced various other documents as per Ext P11, but the petitioner was informed that Ext P10 application submitted by him has been dismissed. Without considering any of the valid documents produced by the petitioner and without affording a reasonable opportunity to prove his caste status, the 2[nd] respondent as per Ext P12 order rejected the petitioner’s scheduled caste community status. 5. Thereupon by Ext P13 order the 1[st] respondent directed the 7[th] respondent to initiate action against the petitioner and his family members and to terminate the service of the petitioner. Validity of Ext P12 was challenged by the petitioner in MFA No. 134/2004 and Ext P13 order was challenged filing WP(C) No.1535/2013. These two cases were disposed of by Ext P14 judgment setting aside Exts P12 and P13 and directing the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the Apex Court judgment in _**R.Unnikrishnan and Others v. V.K. Mahanudevan and others [2014 KHC 4018].**_ Fresh orders were issued in Ext P15 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner relies on the judgment in _**R.Unnikrishnan’s**_ case supra which held in paragraphs 26 to 34 as follows: _“26. The legal position has since the pronouncement of this Court in Pattika Jathi’s case (supra) undergone a change on account of the amendment of the presidential Order in terms of_ WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 6 : _the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2007 which received the assent of the President on 29[th] August , 2007 and was published in the Official Gazette on 30[th] Aug 2007. The Act, inter alia, made the following change in Part VIII-Kerala for Entry 61:_ _“61. Thandan (excluding Ezhuvas and Thiyyas who are known as Thandan, in the erstwhile Cochin and Malabar areas) and (Carpenters who are known as Thachan, in the erstwhile Cochin and Travancore State).”_ _27. There is in the light of the above no manner of doubt that Ezhuvas and Thiyyas who are also known as Thandan, in the erstwhile Cochin and Malabar areas are no longer Scheduled Caste for the said State w.e.f. 30.08.2007, the date when the amendment was notified. The Parliament has, it is evident, removed the prevailing confusion regarding Ezhuvas and Thiyyas known as Thandan, in the erstwhile Cochin and Malabar areas being treated as Scheduled Caste. Ezhuvas and Thiyyas even if called Thandans and belonging to the above area will no longer be entitled to be treated as Scheduled Caste nor will the benefits of reservation be admissible to them._ _28. Taking note of the amending legislation, the Government of Kerala has by Order NO. 93/2010/SC/ST dated 30.08.2010 directed that Ezhuvas and Thiyyas who are known as Thandan, in the erstwhile Cochin and Malabar shall be treated as OBCs in List III. This part was not disputed even by Mr. Giri, counsel appearing for the respondent who fairly conceded that consequent upon the Amendment Act of 2007 (supra) Ezhuvas and Thiyyas known as Thandan, in the erstwhile Cochin and Malabar areas stand deleted from the Scheduled Castes List and are now treated as OBCs by the State Government. What is significant is that the deletion is clearly prospective in nature for Ezhuvas and Thiyyas known as Thandan in the above region were in the light of the decision of this Court in Pattika Jathi’s case (supra) entitled to be treated as Scheduled Caste and the distinction sought to be made between “Thandans” who were Ezhuvas and Thiyyas and those who were Scheduled Caste was held to be impermissible and non est in the eye of the law. The_ WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 7 : _law declared by this Court in Pattika Jathi’s case (supra) entitled all Thandans including those who were Ezhuvas and Thiyyas from Cochin and Malabar region to claim the Scheduled Caste status. That entitlement could be taken away retrospectively only by specific provisions to that effect or by necessary intendment. We see no such specific provision or intendment in the amending legislation to hold that the entitlement was taken away retrospectively so as to affect even those who had already benefited from the reservation for Scheduled Caste candidates. At any rate, a certificate issued to an Ezhuva known as Thandan who was a native of Cochin and Malabar region of the State could not be withdrawn as the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 did not make a distinction between the two categories of Thandans till the Amendment Act of 2007 for the first time introduced such a difference._ _29. That apart, the question of ouster of Ezhuvas and Thiyyas known as Thandan on account of the confusion that prevailed for a considerable length of time till the decision of this Court in Pattika Jathi’s case (supra) would be unjustified both in law and on the principles of equity and good conscience. In State of Maharashtra v. Milind, 2001 KHC 1312:2001 (1) SCC 4: AIR 2001 SC 393: 2001 SCC (L&S)117:2000 AIR SCW 4303: JT 2000 (3) SC(Supp) 213: 2000(8) Supreme 429, this Court was dealing with a somewhat similar situation. That was a case where a student had secured admission to the MBBS degree course by claiming himself to be Scheduled Tribe candidate. The student claimed that Halba-Koshti were the same as Halba, mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. This Court held that neither the Government nor the Court could add to the list of castes mentioned in the Order and that Halba-Koshtis could not by any process of reasoning or interpretation treated to be Halbas. Having said that, the question that fell for consideration was whether the benefit of the reservation could be withdrawn and the candidate deprived of the labour that he had put in obtaining a medical degree. This Court while protecting any such loss of qualification acquired by him observed:_ WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 8 : _“In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practising as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. (xxx) we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment.”_ _30. Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 KHC 4427 : 2012 (8) SCC 430 : 2012 (3) KLT SN 121 : AIR 2012 SC 3016, was also a similar case where the question was whether the appellant who was a “Halba-Koshti” could be treated as “Halba” for purposes of reservation and employment as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. This Court traced the history of the long-drawn confusion whether a “Halba” was the same as “Halba-Koshti” and concluded that while “Halba” and “Halba-Koshti” could not be treated to be one and the same, the principle stated in Milind case was attracted to protect even appointments that were granted by treating “Halba-Koshti” as Halba Scheduled Tribe although such extension of the expression “Halba” appearing in the Presidential Constitution (Scheduled Castes) O.1950 was not permissible. This Court observed:_ _“If ‘Halba-Koshti’ has been treated as “Halba” even before the appellant joined service as a teacher and if the only reason for her ouster is the law declared by this Court in Milind case, there is no reason why the protection against ouster given by this Court to appointees whose applications had become final should not be extended to the appellant also. The Constitution Bench had in Milind case noticed the background in which the confusion had prevailed for many years and the fact that appointments and admissions were made for a long time treating ‘Koshti’ as a Scheduled Tribe and directed that such admissions and appointments wherever the same had attained finality will not be affected by the decision taken by this Court”._ _31. In Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2006 KHC 1239 : 2006 (7) SCC 501 : JT 2006 (7) SC 604 : AIR 2006 SC 3102, also dealing with a similar confusion between “Halba” and “Halba-Koshti” and applying the principle underlying in Milind’s case (supra) this Court held that ouster of candidates who have obtained undeserved benefit will be justified only where_ WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 9 : _the Court finds the claim to be bona fide. In State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje, 2007 KHC 3145 : 2007 (14) SCC 481 : JT 2007 (2) SC 347 this Court held that the grant of relief would depend upon the bona fides of the person who has obtained the appointment and upon the facts and circumstances of each case._ _32. In the instant case there is no evidence of lack of bona fides by the respondent. The protection available under the decision of Milind’s case (supra) could, therefore, be admissible even to the respondent. It follows that even if on a true and correct construction of the expression “Thandan” appearing in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) O.2007 did not include “Ezhuvas” and “Thiyyas” known as “Thandan” and assuming that the two were different at all relevant points of time, the fact that the position was not clear till the Amendment Act of 2007 made a clear distinction between the two, would entitle all those appointed to serve the State up to the date the Amending Act came into force, to continue in service._ _33. In civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 24775 of 2013 filed against an order 5[th] September 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, the High Court has found the cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the respondent in that appeal to be legally bad in as much as the scrutiny committee had not applied its mind to the material which was relied upon by the respondent in that case. No enquiry into the validity of the certificate was found to have been conducted nor was the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee supported by reasons. There is, in our opinion, no legal flaw in that reasoning much less any perversity that may call for our interference. The order passed by the High Court takes a fair view of the matter and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity of any kind._ _34. In the result these appeals fail and are, hereby, dismissed. We, however, make it clear that while the benefit granted to the respondent V.K. Mahanudevan as a Scheduled Caste candidate till 30[th] Aug, 2007 shall remain undisturbed, any advantage in terms of promotion or otherwise which the respondent may have been granted after the said date solely on_ WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 10 : _the basis of his being treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate may if so advised be withdrawn by the Competent Authority. It is axiomatic that the respondent - V.K. Mahanudevan shall not be entitled to claim any benefit in the future as a Scheduled Caste candidate but no benefit admissible to him as an OBC candidate shall be denied. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.”_ The effect of the judgment is that till an amendment of the presidential order in terms of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2007 came into force i.e. on 30.08.2007, whatever benefits which were available to the ezhavas and thiyyas in the erstwhile Cochin and Malabar area in their status as scheduled castes will remain undisturbed. But after the said date none of the benefits on the strength of their status as scheduled caste will be available to them. The Apex Court in _**R.Unnikrishnan’s**_ case cited supra made clear that while the benefit granted to the respondent therein as scheduled caste/scheduled tribe till the promulgation of the Amendment Act on 30.08.2007 shall remain undisturbed, any advantage in terms of the promotion which the respondent therein may have been granted after the said date solely on the basis of him being treated as a scheduled caste candidate may if so advised may be withdrawn by the competent authority and further that the respondent therein shall not be entitled to claim any benefit in future as a scheduled caste candidate, but no benefit admissible to him as an OBC candidate shall be denied. WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 11 : 6. In Ext P14 judgment Division Bench of this Court directed the scrutiny committee to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in _**R.Unnikrishnan’s**_ case supra. But none of these contentions were considered while issuing Ext P15 order. Petitioner also relies on the judgment in _**Kocha T. v. State of Kerala and Others [2016 (2) KHC 920]**_ wherein it is held that the Ezhavas and Thiyyas who are also known as Thandan in the erstwhile Cochin and Malabar though no longer belonged to scheduled caste in the State of Kerala only with effect from 30.08.2007, date of the Presidential Order, and since the amendment is prospective, they would be treated as scheduled caste in cases where they have already been conferred the benefit prior to 30.08.2007. Paragraph 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment reads as follows: “ _10. It, thus, becomes clear that after the said judgment, Ezhuvas and Thiyyas who are also known as Thandan in the erstwhile Cochin and Malabar are no longer Scheduled Castes in the State of Kerala. However, this amendment is prospective and, therefore, the aforesaid change position become effective only from 30/08/2007, the date when the amendment was notified. In R. Unnikrishnan’s judgment, this Court made it clear that having regard to the ratio of Palghat Jilla’s case, Ezhuvas and Thiyyas known as Thandans were entitled to be treated as Scheduled Castes till 29/08/2007 and such an entitlement could not be taken away retrospectively. The Court was, thus, categorical in holding that those who were Ezhuvas/Thiyyas known as Thandans in Cochin and Malabar region and were given the benefit of Scheduled Caste status prior to 30/08/2007 could not be deprived of such benefit already bestowed on them. We would like to reproduce the following discussions from this judgment._ WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 12 : _“36. The law declared by this Court in Palghat Jilla case entitled all Thandans including those who were Ezhuvas and Thiyyas from Cochin and Malabar region to claim the Scheduled Caste status. That entitlement could be taken away retrospectively only by specific provisions to that effect or by necessary intendment. We see no such specific provision or intendment in the amending legislation to hold that the entitlement was taken away retrospectively so as to affect even those who had already benefited from the reservation for Scheduled Caste candidates. At any rate, a certificate issued to an Ezhuva known as Thandan who was a native of Cochin and Malabar region of the State could not be withdrawn as the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 did not make a distinction between the two categories of Thandans till the Amendment Act of 2007 for the first time introduced such a difference._ _29. That apart, the question of ouster of Ezhuvas and Thiyyas known as Thandan on account of the confusion that prevailed for a considerable length of time till the decision of this Court in Palghat Jilla case would be unjustified both in law and on the principles of equity and good conscience. Xxxx xxxx xxxx_ _40. In Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (7) SCC 501 also dealing with a similar confusion between “Halba” and “Halba-Koshti” and applying the principle underlying in Milind’s case, 2001 (1) SCC 4, this Court held that ouster of candidates who have obtained undeserved benefit will be justified only where the Court finds the claim to be bona fide. In State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje, 2007 (14) SCC 481 this Court held that the grant of relief would depend upon the bona fides of the person who has obtained the appointment and upon the facts and circumstances of each case._ _41. In the instant case there is no evidence of lack of bona fides by the respondent. The protection available under the decision of Milind case could, therefore, be admissible even to the respondent. It follows that even if on a true and correct construction of the expression “Thandan” appearing in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 2007 did not include_ WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 13 : _“Ezhuvas” and “Thiyyas” known as “Thandan” and assuming that the two were different at all relevant points of time, the fact that the position was not clear till the Amendment Act of 2007 made a clear distinction between the two, would entitle all those appointed to serve the State up to the date the Amending Act came into force, to continue in service._ _11. The cumulative reading of the aforesaid two judgments viz. In the case of Palaghat Jilla and R. Unnikrishnan, clinches the controversy by tilting the balance in favour of the appellant herein. We may record that the appellants have laboured to demonstrate that they are in fact Thandans on the basis of various documents filed by them and have attentive to argue that the Scrutiny Committee did not arrive at a correct decision. However, it is not even necessary to go into this aspect in the facts of these cases. As pointed out above, the appellant was treated as Thandan and, thus, belonging to Scheduled caste community on the basis of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 and she was appointed as High School Assistant (Physical Science) in Government School on 03/02/1989 treating her as Scheduled Caste. Even if we proceed on the basis that she belongs to Ezhuvas/Thiyyas, that is irrelevant in so far as the appellant is contained as these castes were treated as part of Thandan Community and were held entitled to be treated as Scheduled Caste. This principle is categorically stated in Palaghat Jilla’s case. R. Unnikrishnan’s case clarified that the position changes only w.e.f. 30/08/2007 with the Amendment Act of 2007 when Thiyyas and Ezhuvas are not to be treated as part of Thandan and, thus, Scheduled Caste but those who have already conferred the benefit would entitled to continue to reap the fruits thereof._ _12. In the another appeal also, we find that appellant was treated as belonging to Thandan Community and given benefit much prior to 2007._ _13. For the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. Since the appellants have been continued in service because of the interim order passed by this Court, they are treated as validly appointed giving them the benefit of_ WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 14 : _members of Scheduled Caste category. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside thereby allowing the writ petitions filed by the appellants and quashing the orders of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The appellants shall also be entitled to the cost of these proceedings._ The Apex Court had also occasion to consider a similar case in _**M. Rugmini v. The Director, Kirtads & Others etc.**_ in Civil Appeal Nos. 1162-1163 of 2015 and held that the Ezhavas and Thiyyas known as Thandan of erstwhile Malabar area would be entitled till the Amendment Act of 2007 came into force. The said view was reiterated in M.F.A No. 58/2006 dated 06.12.2016 after referring to the judgment in _**R.Unnikrishnan’s**_ case supra and other judgments. While seting aside the order of the scrutiny committee Division Bench of this Court did not remit the matter back for reconsideration especially taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in _**R.Unnikrishnan’s**_ case supra upheld the impugned order to the extent it declared the caste status of the appellant as a person not belonging to Thandan community or scheduled caste and that he belongs to Hindu Ezhava community. But the consequential direction to cancel the caste certificate issued to him was set aside and issued a further direction that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in _**R.Unnikrishnan’s**_ case supra the appellant is entitled to get all service benefits pursuant to his retirement from service on 31.10.2015 and issued direction to disburse all the consequential benefits. WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 15 : 7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent supporting the impugned orders. 8. In the light of the judgment in _**R.Unnikrishnan’s**_ case supra and the other judgments cited supra, it is without any doubt that whatever benefits that the petitioner has accrued till the date of coming into force of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Amendment) Act of 2007, i.e. 30.08.2010 stands remain undisturbed and that the petitioner would not be entitled for any benefit after the said date, which the petitioner has accrued on the strength of his caste being Thandan Scheduled Caste community. In view of the declaration of the Apex Court as stated above, the writ petition is disposed of as follows. Ext P15 order whereby Ext P12 decision was upheld wherein it is declared that the caste status of appellant who is a person not belonging to Thandan community of scheduled caste and that he belong to Hindu Ezhava community is upheld. But it is made clear that the case of the petitioner shall be governed by the decision in _**R.Unnikrishnan’s**_ case supra as well as _**Kocha T.**_ case cited supra. It is made clear that whatever benefits the petitioner had accrued till the date of coming into force of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Amendment) Act of 2007 i.e., 30.08.2010 shall remain undisturbed making it clear that after the said date the petitioner would not be entitled for any benefit which he had has accrued on WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 16 : the strength of his caste being Thandan scheduled caste community. Since the petitioner had retired from service all benefits due to the petitioner including pension and other benefits shall be disbursed to him on the basis of the declaration made above. It is further directed that all eligible benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** sbk/- WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 17 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12639/2019`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TREU COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.01.1979. EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.07.1978. EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.05.1998 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.09.1998. EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.4.1998 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.04.2002. EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.05.2002 IN O.P.13634/2002 EXHIBIT P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE ANTHROPOLIGOCAL REPORT DATED 23.08.2003 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFRORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.09.2003. EXHIBIT P10THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.9.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2017 IN MFA.134/2004 AND W.P. (c)NO.1535/2013. EXHIBIT P15TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.2355457/G2/2018/SCSTDD DATED 02.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-R7(a)TRUE COPY OF THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ORDER DATED 02.02.2019. EXHIBIT-R7(b)TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. ``` WP(C) No. 12639 of 2019 : 18 : ``` EXHIBIT-R7(c)TRUE COPY OF THE ATTESTATION FORM DATED 21/22-12/1978 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-R7(d)TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18.09.1998 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-R7(e)TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18.09.1998. ```