Mereena w/o Santosh v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/30TH KARTHIKA, 1936** **WA.No. 588 of 2014 () IN WP(C).15234/2012 -------------------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15234/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 7/3/2014** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:** **----------------------------------------------** **MEREENA W/O.SANTHOSH, AGED 33 YEARS KOODAPPATTU PANIKKANKUDY P.O UDUMBANTHALA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001** ## **2. THE TAHSILDAR** **VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.** ## **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,** - **KONNATHADY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 564.** ## **4. THE TAHSILDAR** **UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT** ## **5. THE DIRECTOR,** - **STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (KERALA KARNATAKA REGION)E WING KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 002.** ## **6. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE OMMISSION** - **PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.SANTHAMMA BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ. =============================== Writ Appeal No. 588 of 2014 ====================** ## **Dated this the 21[st] day of November, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Antony Dominic, J. Petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15234/12 is the appellant. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P10 and to direct the respondents to issue a caste certificate certifying that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe of Malayarayan Christian in terms of the provisions contained in the Constitution of (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing as follows; _“In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority under (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulations of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1966 (Kerala), who will consider whether she has suffered disability- socially, economically and educationally and the society has accepted her to the original fold as one among them and is living in the same social tenet. This shall be done after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner is at liberty to produce evidence, orally and_ **W.A.No.588/14** ## **: 2 :** _documentary, in support of her claim before the competent authority. The petitioner shall approach the authority within one month from today with a request. In the event of filing such a request, the competent authority shall dispose of the same within two months thereafter.”_ It is this judgment which is under challenge before us. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the appellant is that she is a child born in an intercaste marriage between a Malayaraya lady and RCSC husband. It is stated that they were residents of Scheduled Tribe Colony of Udumbanchola Taluk in Idukki District. According to her, her parents abandoned her and she was brought up by her maternal uncle Sri.George in accordance with the customs of the Malayarayan Community. She says that in recognition of her caste status as a member of the Malayarayan community, it has been so mentioned in Ext.P1 SSLC book and Ext.P4, a caste **W.A.No.588/14** **: 3 :** certificate issued to her in 2002. She says that subsequently, she got married to a person belonging to Ezhava community in a marriage conducted in terms of the provisions contained in the Special Marriage Act, the certificate of which is Ext.P14. According to her, since then, she is residing in her matrimonial home at Vaikom Taluk. 4. In 2012, she made an application to the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk for a caste certificate. Thereupon, she was given Ext.P7 reply stating that since she is presently a resident of Vaikom Taluk, her application should be to the Tahsildar of that Taluk. Accordingly, she made an application to the Tahsildar of Vaikom Taluk to which she got Ext.P9 reply stating that a clarification is awaited. Finally, she was given Ext.P10 reply rejecting her request. In Ext.P10, she was informed that though she was born to an inter caste married couple, of which her mother was a member of the Scheduled Tribe of Malayarayan Community, enquiries reveal that since her marriage was with a member of the Ezhava Community and she has adopted the **W.A.No.588/14** ## **: 4 :** customs of that community, she is living in accordance thereof. It is stated that, therefore, her request for a certificate that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe cannot be granted. It was challenging Ext.P10 and for the consequential directions, the writ petition was filed, which came to be disposed of in the manner as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that her claim having been recognised in 2002 by issuing Ext.P4 certificate, in the absence of cancelling the same in accordance with Section 11 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (Act 11 of 1996), her request for a caste certificate is bound to be honoured. First of all, Ext.P4 certificate was issued in terms of the GO(MS) 6/79/DD dated 9/1/1979 and the certificate also clarifies that the same has been issued only for educational purposes. 6. In so far as Section 11 now pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the said Section provides for cancellation of false community certificates issued to **W.A.No.588/14** ## **: 5 :** persons not belonging to any one of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. 7. In so far as this case is concerned, Ext.P10 proceeds on the basis that she has ceased to be a beneficiary of the status of a Scheduled Tribe for the reason of her subsequent marriage and adoption of the customs of the community to which her husband belongs. Therefore, this may not be a case to which Section 11 strictly applies. 8. Considering the provisions of Act 11 of 1996, a Full Bench of this Court rendered its judgment in _**Indira v. State of Kerala**_ (2005 (4) KLT 119). In accordance with the findings of the Full Bench in Indira's case (supra), Government of Kerala issued GO(MS) No.109/2008/SCSTDD dated 20/11/2008. This Government Order concludes by stating thus; _“In view of the above observations of the High Court of Kerala, Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to order that the Competent Authority who has to issue Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate to the children born out of inter caste_ **W.A.No.588/14** **: 6 :** _married couple of which one of the parents is Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe should ensure that the claimant is subjected to same social disabilities and also following the same customs and traditions and community has accepted that person to its fold as such. The Authority to issue the Caste Certificate should also ensure 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.”_ 9. Therefore, any certificate to be issued after the issuance of the said Government Order should be in compliance with the conditions of the Government Order. It is therefore necessary for the competent authority to be satisfied that the conditions prescribed in the Government Order are satisfied and only if such conditions are satisfied, can a community certificate in terms of the Government Order and Act 11 of 1996 be issued to an applicant. **W.A.No.588/14** ## **: 7 :** 10. In so far as this case is concerned, the respondents are disputing the satisfaction of the conditions specified in the Government Order. It was therefore that the learned single Judge has ordered that an enquiry be conducted with notice to the appellant and on that basis certificate be issued after the conditions thereof are satisfied. Such a conclusion of the learned single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any illegality justifying interference in this appeal. 11. Writ appeal is dismissed. 12. We direct the appellant to produce a copy of this judgment before the competent authority immediately and on production of a copy of this judgment, the competent authority shall conclude the enquiry as ordered by the learned single Judge and pass final orders in the matter, at any rate within, four weeks thereafter. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that she has been directed by the authorities of the KSRTC to produce a caste certificate immediately. Considering the fact that ## **W.A.No.588/14** **: 8 :** an enquiry as ordered by the learned single Judge is yet to be concluded, we clarify that it will be open to the appellant to produce a copy of this judgment before the concerned employer, who thereupon will consider whether enlargement of time could be given to the appellant for obtaining and producing the certificate. Sd/- **ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE** Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge