M.B. Indira and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.24837 of 2013** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 M.B.INDIRA, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. A.RAJAPPAN, "INDU", RESIDING AT 54/3302, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20.** - **2 INDURAJ V.R., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.M.B.INDIRA, "INDU", RESIDING AT 54/3302, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20.** - **3 INDUJA V.R., AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.M.B.INDIRA, "INDU", RESIDING AT 54/3302, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20.** - **4 RAJESWAR V.R., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.M.B.INDIRA, "INDU", RESIDING AT 54/3302, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20.** - **BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR SRI.ANAND PARATHARA SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFFI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** - **2 THE TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 011.** - **3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 020. BY SRI. K.V.PRAKASHAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2019, THE COURT ON 12.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 2 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are allegedly 'Hindu Mala Araya', a Scheduled Tribe community, seeking to quash Ext.P12 enquiry report of the Village Officer, Elamkulam, Kochi, and Ext.P13 order of the Tahsildar, Kanayanoor Taluk, dated 07.09.2013, whereby the application submitted by the 1[st] petitioner seeking issuance of certificate to the children showing the caste as 'Hindu Mala Araya' was rejected, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. The 1[st] petitioner has married a person belonging to Dheevara community. Petitioners 2 to 4 are children born in the wedlock, and according to the 1[st] petitioner, they are brought up in accordance with the custom and tradition of the Mala Araya community, and their caste status is recorded as Mala Araya in their educational records. The 3[rd] petitioner has completed Post Graduate course in Sanskrit and applied for B.Ed. Degree Course for the year 2005. She applied for issuing caste certificate and the said application was rejected, holding that certificate can be issued only on the basis of father's caste. Thereupon, 3[rd] W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 3 petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.17317/2005 seeking to issue Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate. The said writ petition was referred to Full Bench along with other cases and as per the judgment in ' _**Indira v. State of**_ _**Kerala**_ ' [2005 (4) KLT 119 (F.B.), held that, children born out of inter-caste married couple whose mother alone belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is entitled to benefit of reservation. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that, in view of the said judgment, 3[rd] petitioner applied for Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate, on 10.10.2005. But for a long time, no action was taken and later on 25.10.2007, a Caste Certificate was issued certifying that she belongs to her father's caste viz., 'Hindu Dheevara'. 3. Being aggrieved, W.P.(C) No.7439 of 2008 was filed before this Court. In the meantime, the Government issued Ext.P4 notification dated 20.11.2008, in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench specified above, and directing that the children born out of inter-caste married couple of which one of the parents is Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe can claim the status of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe on proof of the conditions of the acceptance, customary traits and tenets under which such children are brought up and W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 4 thereupon, further directed the authority to issue Caste Certificate ensuring that: (i) each case shall be examined individually in the light of the existing facts and circumstances. (ii) the claimant has suffered disabilities- socially, economically and educationally. (iii) the society has accepted the claimant to their original fold as one among them and is living in the same social tenet. 4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of in the light of the said Government Order as per Ext.P5 judgment. In pursuance of Ext.P5, the 2[nd] respondent i.e., the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk conducted enquiry especially on the basis of economic, social and educational conditions stipulated in Ext.P4. Ext.P6 letter was issued by the Tahsildar to the 3[rd] respondent Village Officer for due enquiry and Ext.P7 report dated 20.05.2009 was submitted by the 3[rd] respondent, stating that, petitioners 2 to 4 are living in accordance with the custom and tradition of Mala Araya community and are entitled to be treated as Scheduled Tribe Mala Araya as per the guidelines contained in Ext.P4. Thereupon, Exts.P8, P9 and P10 Caste Certificates were issued to the petitioners 2 to 4, showing their tribal W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 5 status. It is further submitted that, 4[th] petitioner is doing M.Tech in Cochin University and the 2[nd] petitioner has succeeded in the preliminary test for the post of Munsiff-Magistrate, and 3[rd] petitioner has applied for various jobs, and therefore, petitioners 2 to 4 are in need of Caste Certificates. 5. Thereupon, Ext.P11 application dated 16.08.2013 was submitted for securing caste certificates. However, on the same day, the 3[rd] respondent prepared Ext.P12 report and submitted to the 2[nd] respondent, stating that petitioners 2 to 4 are educationally and economically in a better position and not eligible to get the benefit under Ext.P4. Thereafter, relying upon Ext.P12, Ext.P13 order dated 07.09.2013 was passed, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. 6. The case projected by the petitioners is that, Ext.P12 report is prepared and Ext.P13 order is passed without conducting an enquiry and it is against the findings arrived at by the statutory authorities in the enquiries conducted earlier. Therefore, Exts.P12 and P13 are illegal and liable to be interfered with by this Court. That apart, it is contended that, the Village Officer who has prepared Ext.P12 report was the W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 6 person who has prepared the earlier report dated 13.01.2013, stating that petitioners are eligible to get Scheduled Tribe certificate, evident from Ext.P14. It is the further case of the petitioners that, after Ext.P14, no special changes have occurred in the economic and social status of the petitioners, apart from, some of the petitioners acquiring more educational qualifications. However, that will not dis-entitle them to get their Caste Certificates. These are the basic background facts projected by the petitioners to secure the reliefs sought for. 7. The 2[nd] respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. Among other contentions, it is stated that, as per the judgment of the apex court in S.L.P (C) Nos.21472-73/2005 dated 07.11.2005, it was held that, certificate of caste shall be issued on the basis of the caste and community of the father of the applicant. Later, the Full Bench of this Court in _**'Indira'**_ ( _supra_ ) and connected cases, held that the children born out of inter-caste married couples of which one of the parent is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe can claim the status of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe on proof of the conditions of the W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 7 acceptance, customary traits and tenets under which such children are brought up. It was accordingly that Government have issued Ext.P4 notification specified above. The scheme and objective of the said Government Order is to extend the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe benefits only to the person suffering from disabilities socially, economically and educationally. The existing facts and circumstances in respect of the petitioners case disclosed that they are not eligible for the benefits contained in the above Government Order. Petitioners are residing at Elamkulam Village in Ernakulam District and they are living in a better condition. 8. It is also pointed out that, no contra evidence has been adduced by the petitioners to prove that they are living in socially, economically and educationally disabled manner. But, on the other hand, records and enquiries proved that they have obtained best education and their parents were placed at respectable posts in Government Service. Therefore, according to the respondents, petitioners are not entitled to get any certificate showing their caste status as Scheduled Tribe. W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 8 9. A detailed reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also producing various documents to show that earlier certificates were issued by the Village Officer, Elamkulam showing the income of the 1[st] petitioner and certain School records to show that the caste shown in the School records is that of Scheduled Tribe. 10. The 1[st] respondent has also filed a counter affidavit in similar lines. Reply affidavit is filed to the said counter affidavit by the petitioners, and various other documents are also produced, issued by the Taluk Office, Kanayannur, showing the caste of the 2[nd] petitioner as Mala Arayan. Various other documents are also produced in order to establish that petitioners are entitled to get the certificates showing their caste as 'Hindu Mala Araya'. 11. I have heard Sri. P.A. Abdul Jabbar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K.V.Prakashan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 12. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioners is that, in the school 9 ## W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 records, the caste of petitioners 2 to 4 is shown as 'Mala Araya' and the Tahsildar, Kanayannur has earlier issued certificates showing the caste of the 2[nd] petitioner as Hindu Mala Araya and therefore, so far as the caste status of the petitioners are concerned, it is well-established and conclusive, and there was no occasion for the Tahsildar to re-open the issue by making fresh enquiry and holding otherwise. It is an admitted fact that husband of the 1[st] petitioner i.e., the father of petitioners 2 to 4 is belonging to Dheevara community, which is entitled to the benefits of Other Backward Classes alone. However, case projected by the petitioners is that, petitioners 2 to 4 were brought up in accordance with the traits and tenets prevailing in the Mala Araya community and they have suffered educationally, economically and socially, and the said aspect was never taken into account by the Village Officer while, submitting Ext.P12 report, and the Tahsildar rejecting the application as per Ext.P13 order. 13. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that, the order is passed by the Tahsildar in his status as the statutory authority, taking into account Ext.P12 report submitted by the W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 10 Village Officer, and the Village Officer on enquiry has clearly found that the petitioners were never put to any difficulties, socially, economically or otherwise, and therefore, when their father is belonging to Dheevara community, the children are not entitled to get any certificate showing their caste of the mother as Mala Araya. Learned Special Government Pleader has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench in _**'Indira'**_ ( _supra_ ) and submitted that the issue raised by the petitioners was considered, and has held as follows in paragraphs 29 to 35: _“_ _**29** . In few cases in this batch, the father belongs to non-Scheduled Caste or non-Scheduled Tribe Hindus. They are certainly governed by Hindu Law. As held in Punit Rai:_ _“Determination of caste of a person is governed by the customary laws. A person under the customary Hindu law would be inheriting his caste from his father. .... The caste of the father, therefore, will be the determinative factor in absence of any law.” and_ _“If a customary law is to be given a go-by for any purpose whatsoever and particularly for the purpose of enlarging the scope of a notification issued by the President of India under Clause (1) of Art.341 of the Constitution of India, the same must be done in terms of a statute and not otherwise.”_ _**30** . If father is not governed by Hindu Law, the practice prevalent in his caste/community has also to be looked into._ _**31** . If at all any one has a case otherwise or that he/she is not governed by customary Hindu Law or the law governing his/her father, or that_ W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 11 _he/she belongs to any other caste than that certified by the competent authority, as the case may be, it is a special case and special situation. Again as held in Punit Rai_ _“If a special case is to be made out, the same has to be done in accordance with law. It must meet the legal requirement”._ _G.O.11/77, which does not satisfy any legal requirement on any count, therefore, will not help such persons for determination of their caste._ _**32** . On the other hand, Act 11/96 is intended to deal with such special case, meeting the legal requirement in that regard. It provides for a procedure for and to regulate the issue of Community Certificates to members of SC/ST. As per S.3, any one claiming reservation for admission to an educational institution or in public employment has to prove his claim by a certificate issued, for the purpose under this Act, by the Competent Authority in manner prescribed. The Competent Authority, as mentioned already, has to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the claim before the issuance of the community certificate. That means, there shall be an enquiry by the competent authority. Even if a certificate is obtained and an application for admission to an educational institution is made on its basis, it can again be subjected to scrutiny by a Scrutiny Committee, as provided in S.6 of the Act. The Scrutiny Committee will also conduct an enquiry through expert agency to ascertain whether the applicant belongs to SC/ST. The appointing authorities and heads of educational institutions are also empowered to cause further verification, wherever necessary, as per S.7 of the Act. A Scrutiny Committee is constituted for verification as enjoined in S.8. S.8 further provides that:_ _“Any person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or any appointing authority ..... may make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the scrutiny committee for verification of community certificates.”_ W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 12 _Thus, even if the competent authority issues a community certificate that one does not belong to SC/ST, he can make an application to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of that certificate. S.9 provides that “the Expert Agency may conduct such enquiries” into the claim of an individual or group of individuals that he/they belong to SC/ST even, “on petitions and complaints being received by it”._ _So any one, in case he is denied of his claim for a certificate showing that he belongs to SC/ST can petition to the Expert Agency._ _**33** . The enquiry to be conducted by the Competent Authority, Scrutiny Committee or the Expert Agency will be effective, as such authorities are vested with the powers of civil court in the matter of collecting evidence during such enquiry, as per S.14._ _**34** . Apart from that any one aggrieved by the order of the competent authority rejecting his application for community certificate can appeal to the next higher competent authority. This appellate power is conferred by S.12 of the Act. Government is also invested with a power of revision for the purpose of satisfying themselves of the legality, regularity or propriety of any decision or order by any authority other than the Scrutiny Committee and to modify, vary or revise such order. If the order is passed by the Scrutiny Committee, appellate power is conferred on this Court under S.12(3)._ _**35** . Thus effective provisions are made in Act 11/96 for determining the caste status of an incumbent claiming any type of reservation or privileges as applicable to SC/ST. When there is such statutory provision, no one can claim that he/she shall be issued with a community certificate merely based on the inter-caste marriage contracted by his/her parents._ _When, thus, G.O.11/77 does not meet the constitutional requirement to declare any class of persons as belonging to SC/ST or to determine their caste status and when it offends the Constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights, as found above and is thus ultra vires to the Constitution of India and when_ W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 13 _it does not have existence at all in the eye of law in the wake of enforcement of Act 11/96, no one can seek a declaration that he/she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes on its basis, nor can he/she seek a direction to the authorities to issue community certificate showing him/her as belonging to Scheduled Caste or Tribe simply on the basis of G.O.11/77. Such persons also cannot get admission to educational institutions or appointment in public services, availing reservation applicable to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, unless the competent authority certifies him/her as belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in accordance with procedure prescribed by Act 11/96. In none of these cases, except in M.F.A.Nos.66 and 85 of 2004, the procedure in terms of Act 11/96 has been completed. When competent authority has declined the community certificate as applied for, the aggrieved persons can approach the higher authority by way of appeal under S.12 and also Government in revision under S.13. They can also approach the Scrutiny Committee or even petition to the Expert Agency as provided in S.8 and 9 respectively. This court cannot, under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, interfere in such matters involving disputed questions of facts relating to the caste status of one, which involve collection of evidence and materials at length, when efficacious machineries are provided by law to resolve such issues, and unless and until such remedies are exhausted. On the other hand, M.F.A.Nos.66 and 85 have to be decided separately, as those are statutory appeals in terms of S.12(3) of Act 11/96, by the concerned Bench, in accordance with law”._ 14. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, merely because a certificate was issued earlier for securing admission to educational institutions, that will not disable the statutory authority to conduct any enquiry when a fresh application is submitted. So also, it is contended that, Ext.P12 report and Ext.P13 order are issued and W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 14 passed taking into account various factual circumstances, and if the petitioners are aggrieved, there is a clear remedy available to the petitioners to prefer appeal to the immediate higher authority, i.e., the District Collector. However, petitioners have not cared to file any appeal. 15. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. In my considered view, Ext.P12 report drawn by the Village Officer shows that petitioners are living in accordance with the custom and traditions prevailing in the Hindu Dheevara community and they are living in the Elamkulam Village for the past 32 years, and they are economically, socially and educationally in a better condition, and therefore, they are not entitled to get any certificate showing their caste as Hindu Mala Araya. It was further reported that, 1[st] petitioner retired from the Central Excise Department as a 'Women Searcher' and her husband retired as Government High School Teacher. It was on the basis of the enquiry and report, Ext.P13 order is passed by the Tahsildar. 16. The thrust of the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the enquiry report only shows that they are living in W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 15 better educational, social and economic background, however, no enquiry was made as to whether they have suffered economic, social or educational disabilities. In my considered view, when it is found that the 1[st] petitioner was employed in the Central Excise Department and the children were given good education and the father retired as Government High School Teacher, it can only be _prima facie_ presumed that they did not suffer any socially, educationally and economically bad situations. Anyhow, these are all the outcome of an enquiry conducted and factual circumstances drawn in the enquiry. Therefore, I do not think petitioners have made out a case for interference by this Court at this stage of the proceedings, since the conclusions are arrived at by the Tahsildar on the basis of factual situations available on record. Even though petitioners have produced various certificates at the School level and the certificate issued by the Tahsildar earlier, in the writ petition filed by the petitioners itself, the Full Bench of this Court has held that merely because certificates were issued earlier, that will not stand in the way of conducting any subsequent enquiry in order to ascertain the real issues and as to whether 16 ## W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 they are entitled to get any certificates. It is also a very well-settled position that only those persons who are entitled to get the benefits of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community alone are entitled to secure the certificate. It is also a well-settled position that normally the traits and tenets of the father is followed by children and when a claim is made that one of the parents is belonging to Scheduled Caste community, they are entitled to get the benefits of the said community, only if on enquiry they are found to be socially, educationally and economically backward. 17. That apart, as per section 10 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (in short, 'the Act, 1996'), burden to prove the claims made is on the petitioners, but I do not think any endeavour was made by the petitioners to do so. Section 10 of Act, 1996 reads thus: _“_ _**10. Burden of proof** .- Where an application is made to the Competent Authority under Section 4 for the issue of a community certificate in respect of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or in any enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority, the Expert Agency, or the Scrutiny Committee or in any trial or offence under this Act, the burden of proving that he belongs to such Caste or Tribe shall be on the claimant.”_ W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 17 18. Taking into account the factual and legal circumstances discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioners have not made out any case of interference by this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners have still any grievances, the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the statutory authorities in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1996. Petitioners are at liberty to do so, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and if any such appeal/application is received by any of the statutory authority, it shall be considered in accordance with law and on the merits of the matter. I make it clear that all the questions of fact raised by the petitioners are left open for appropriate adjudication. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ## **Sd/-** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **JUDGE** W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 18 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TAHASILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK CERTIFYING THE CASTE STATUS OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE VIVAHAPATHRIKA ISSUED BY AKHILA THIRUVITHAMKOOR MALA ARAYA MAHA SABHA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AKHILA THIRUVITHAMKOOR MALA ARAYA SABHA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO.GO(MS) 109/SCSTDD. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.7439/2008 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS TO THE CASTE STATUS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS TO THE CASTE STATUS OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS TO THE CASTE STATUS OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 19 |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE**| |---|---| ||**RECRUITMENT CELL OF COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF**| ||**SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE ISSUED**| ||**BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM**| |**EXHIBIT P16(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE ISSUED**| ||**BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P17(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P17(B)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P17(C)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF S.S.L.C.**| ||**BOOK OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF S.S.L.C.**| ||**BOOK OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P20**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF S.S.L.C.**| ||**BOOK OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CASTE BY**| ||**THE 3RD PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P22**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATES ISSUED**| ||**IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P22(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATES ISSUED**| ||**IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P22(B)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATES ISSUED**| ||**IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P22(C)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATES ISSUED**| ||**IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P23**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE 4TH**| ||**PETITIONER FROM KPSC.**| |**EXHIBIT P24**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM KPSC**| ||**WEB SITE.**| W.P.(C) No.24837 of 2013 20 - **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KPSC.** - **EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM KPSC BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OBTAINED FROM THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE KPSC FOR PRODUCTION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **St/-**