K.R Anil Kumar v State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937** **OP(KAT).No. 384 of 2015 (Z) ----------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 229/2014 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 03-02-2015** **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN T.A::** **----------------------------------------------K.R ANILKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.P.R.VYOMAKESAN, FORMERLY:DRIVER, PC NO.979 A.R.CAMP KOTTAYAM), RESIDING AT PLANCHUVATTIL VEEDU CHEMBU, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686141.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.S.ANEESH** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN T.A::** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT(G)DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.** **3. THE COMMANDANT, ARMED RESERVE, A.R.CAMP, KOTTAYAM-686141.** **R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI JOSEPH GEORGE** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **kkj** ## **OP(KAT).No. 384 of 2015** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.02.2015 IN T.A.NO.229/2014 ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF T.A.NO.229/2014 EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF ENTRY IN THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2009 IN W.A.NO.527 OF 2006 EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.08.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GO(MS)2/2010/SC.ST DD DATED 11.01.2010 ISSUED BY R1 EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.01.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.36469 OF 2007 ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** ## **NIL** **// TRUE COPY //** **PA TO JUDGE** **K.SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V.ASHA, JJ. --------------------------------------------O.P.(KAT) No.384 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of January, 2015** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Surendra Mohan, J. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition challenging an order, Exhibit P4, dated 11.01.2010 by which, it was held that he was not a person belonging to the Mala Arayan Community (Scheduled Tribe) but, a person who belongs to the Valan Community. The petitioner had obtained appointment as a Driver Police Constable in the Armed Reserve Camp, Kottayam. It was while he was working in the said post that, the impugned order was passed. The Writ Petition was subsequently transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, renumbered as T.A.No.229 of 2014 and was considered by the Tribunal. The petitioner is before us challenging the dismissal of T.A.No.229 of 2014. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he had been adopted by his mother's sister Smt.Radha who was residing ## -:2:- ## O.P.(KAT) No.384 of 2015 in Enthayar, Mundakayam of Kottayam District. She was married to one Mr. Viswanathan who was a member of the Mala Arayan Community. Since they were not having any children, the petitioner claims that, he was adopted by them as their son. When he was admitted to the school, his community was shown as Mala Arayan. The same has been reflected in his SSLC Book also. Based on the entries in his SSLC Book, the petitioner was issued with a Community Certificate by the Tahsildar concerned. It was relying on the said Community Certificate that the petitioner had obtained appointment as a Driver in the Armed Reserve Police. While working in the said post, he was issued with a show cause notice alleging that the declaration regarding his community status was false. Pursuant to the said notice, an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS. Upon finding that the declaration regarding his community was false, action was initiated against him. 3. The petitioner had earlier challenged the action ## -:3:- ## O.P.(KAT) No.384 of 2015 initiated against him in O.P.No.17098 of 1997 before this Court. The said Original Petition was allowed by this Court quashing the proceedings initiated against him as being violative of the principles of natural justice. As per directions issued by this Court in a Writ Appeal filed by the State against the said judgment, the proceedings initiated against him were treated as a notice and subsequent action followed, culminating in the order that was under challenge before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. After considering the contentions of the respective parties, the KAT has dismissed the petitioner's application. It is the said order that is under challenge before us. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had not committed fraud in the matter of declaring his community status. He had also not made any false declaration. The declaration had been made by his adoptive parents at the time of enrolling him in school as a child. It was the said mistake that was carried -:4:- ## O.P.(KAT) No.384 of 2015 on into his SSLC Book. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the dictum laid down by this Court in **Prakash v. State of Kerala** [2002 (2) KLT 580]. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is likely to lose his job also in view of the impugned order. Therefore, it is contended that this is a perfect case in which the petitioner may not be deprived of the benefits that have accrued to him. 5. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are opposed by the learned Government Pleader. According to the learned Government Pleader, the contentions of the petitioner have been properly considered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and rejected. With respect to the decision of this Court on which reliance is placed, it is pointed by the learned Government Pleader that it is the dictum in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in **R.Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala** [(2004) 2 SCC 105] that governs. In view of the dictum in the decision of ## -:5:- ## O.P.(KAT) No.384 of 2015 the Supreme Court, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this Original Petition. 6. Heard. The case of the petitioner is that, he had been adopted by his mother's sister who was married to a person of the Mala Arayan Community. On the above basis, even his adoptive mother cannot claim the status of a member of the Mala Arayan Community. The petitioner's claim being only as an adopted child of the said person, stands on a much lower footing. The Supreme Court has in the decision in **R.Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (Supra)** settled the legal position with respect to cases in which a person who does not belong to a Scheduled Caste community has been conferred the benefits that were rightfully not due to him. It is trite that, the benefits of reservation are available only to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. It is necessary for a person claiming such status to have been born into such ## -:6:- O.P.(KAT) No.384 of 2015 community. The petitioner is a person who has not admittedly been born into a Scheduled Caste or Tribe community. It is also not in dispute that, his community had been shown as Mala Arayan wrongly. The only case of the petitioner is that, he had no role in the said wrong entry being supplied into his school records. Therefore, even according to the petitioner, the entry in his school records was wrong. Consequently, his appointment as a member of the Mala Arayan Community was also bad. The petitioner is for the said reason, not entitled to claim any benefit on the basis of the appointment that he has obtained, even if the said action is considered to be on the basis of an error. The above being the position, it is only appropriate that, the benefit that he has obtained wrongly is taken away at the earliest. We have gone through the order of Kerala Administrative Tribunal and find that the Tribunal has considered the issue elaborately and properly, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **R.Viswanatha Pillai v.** ## -:7:- ## O.P.(KAT) No.384 of 2015 **State of Kerala (Supra).** We also notice that the impugned order Annexure A1 has been passed by the same learned Judge, who had rendered the judgment in **Prakash** ## **v. State of Kerala (Supra).** For the above reasons, we find no grounds to entertain this Original Petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. This Original Petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- **K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE** Sd/- **P.V.ASHA JUDGE** kkj