High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2012-08-10Writ appeal dismissed.

R. Rajendraprasad and R. Muthukrishnan v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WA.No.1396 of 2006

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. N. Ramachandran Nair
B. P. Ray
Judgment Date: 2012-08-10
Court Decision / Holding: Writ appeal dismissed; the High Court affirmed the government’s action and the KIRTADS findings; no interference with the scrutiny committee’s conclusions.
Final Disposition: Writ appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

R. Rajendraprasad
R. Muthukrishnan

Respondents

State of Kerala, rep. by Secretary, SC/ST Development Department, Trivandrum
Secretary to Government of Kerala, Motor Vehicles Department, Trivandrum
Dr. N. Viswanathan Nair, Director of KIRTADS, Calicut
Kerala State Electricity Board, by its Secretary, Vydhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum
Scrutiny Committee for Verification of SC/STS Claims, by its Chairman, Commissioner & Secretary (SCSTDD), Government Secretariat, Trivandrum
M.G.K. Moorthy, Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of SC/STS Claims, Govt. Secretariat, Trivandrum
P. Subramonian, Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode
Dr. Ambedkar Cultural and Educational Society, Ambedkar Bhavan, Trivandrum (rept. by Chairman, M. Thankappan)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smt. V.P. Seemandini (Sr.)
• Sri M.S. Unnikrishnan
• Smt. Lekshmi Ramanathan
• Smt. S. Karthika
• Sri M.R. Anison
• Smt. T.B. Remani

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. N. Santha (Spl Govt Pleader)
• Smt. P.K. Santhamma
• Sri Jose J. Matheikel (SC, KSEB)
• Smt. Mary Benjamin
• Sri K.A. Balan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court heard WA.No.1396 of 2006 challenging the order/judgment in OP.9219/1996 dated 28-06-2006. The appellants, two government employees, claimed eligibility on the basis of being members of the Gavara community (a Scheduled Caste) as certified by a Tahsildar. An extensive anthropological and genealogical study by KIRTADS concluded the appellants do not belong to Gavara but to the Naidu community, traditionally non-SC. The Government accepted this report and, following scrutiny, terminated the first appellant and authorized retirement for the second. The appellants challenged the findings before the High Court, which dismissed their writ petition after a prolonged analysis. The respondents relied on a Division Bench decision in Principal, R.E.C., Calicut v. C.B.Suresh Babu and another, which held Gavara to be a recognized Scheduled Caste in Kerala and untouchable; the DB also held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain challenges to KIRTADS findings. While the present court acknowledged that DB authority exists on Gavara’s SC status and that jurisdiction over KIRTADS findings may be limited, it proceeded to examine the injustice argued by the appellants. Ultimately, the court found no occasion to interfere, noting the appellants’ lack of explanation for not seeking SC status earlier and the documentary support for Hindu-Naidu identity. The writ appeal is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of issue of Community Certificates) Act, 1996

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the KIRTADS report and the Scrutiny Committee's conclusions are factually and legally incorrect. They contended that the Tahsildar’s certificate falsely classifying them as Gavara cannot convert them into a Scheduled Caste, and that a careful, holistic review of anthropological evidence is required. They emphasized that they did not claim SC benefits during their education, but asserted that such evidence does not foreclose relief if misclassification occurred. They urged the Court to re-examine the KIRTADS findings and the government’s reliance on them, highlighting potential procedural and evidentiary deficiencies and stressing the need for fairness in applying caste-based eligibility rules.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Gavara is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in Kerala and that the Gavara status of the appellants is not established by the Tahsildar’s certificate alone. Relying on the Division Bench decision in Principal, R.E.C., Calicut v. C.B.Suresh Babu and another, they asserted that KIRTADS’s findings are authoritative and that the High Court has limited or no jurisdiction to examine these findings. They pointed to the extensive evidence produced by KIRTADS and the Scrutiny Committee, including genealogical records and service histories, which support Naidu identity and non-SC status of the appellants. The respondents argued the Government’s action was proper and upholdable under the relevant Act, given the need to prevent misuse of SC certificates and to maintain integrity of caste-based admissions and appointments.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Principal, R.E.C., Calicut and others v. C.B.Suresh Babu and another	2002 (1) I.L.R. Kerala Series 263	Partly Overruled / Limited	The Division Bench decision is cited as controlling precedent on the status of Gavara as a Scheduled Caste and on the jurisdictional question regarding challenges to KIRTADS findings. The current court acknowledges the DB’s stance but chooses to proceed and examine the appellants’ grievance, indicating a selective or limited application of that precedent rather than a full reversal.

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 R. Rajendraprasad and R. Muthukrishnan v. State of Kerala & 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 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY** **FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/19TH SRAVANA 1934** ## **WA.No. 1396 of 2006** **------------------------------GAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP.9219/1996 DATED 28-06-2006** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS::** ## **-------------------------** **1. R. RAJENDRAPRASAD,** **DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION** **2. R. MUTHUKRISHNAN,** **SUB ENGINEER (RETIRED), ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUZHALMANNAM PALGHAT DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)** **SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.LEKSHMY RAMANATHAN SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.T.B.REMANI** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:: ---------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, SCH.CASTES & SCH.TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.** **2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.** **3. DR.N.VISWANATHAN NAIR, DIRECTOR OF KIRTADS, CALICUT-17.** **4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM.** **5. SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF SC/STS CLAIM, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY (SCSTDD), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM.** **6. M.G.K. MOORTHY, CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF SC/STS CLAIMS, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.** **7. P. SUBRAMONIAN,** - **REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE.** **8. DR. AMBEDKAR CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, TRIVANDRU REP. BY, CHAIRMAN, M.THANKAPPAN.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA BY SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB R7 BY ADV.SMT.MARY BENJAMIN R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.BALAN** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **C.N.Ramachandran Nair & B.P. Ray, JJ.** ==================================== W.A.No.1396/2006 ==================================== Dated this the 10[th] day of August, 2012. ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ramachandran Nair, J.** Both the appellants are direct brothers who secured employment in Government service by obtaining certificate from Tahsildar that they belong to the Scheduled Caste community by name “Gavara”. However, anthropological and genealogical study conducted by KIRTADS, a special body constituted under the Kerala Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of issue of Community Certificates) Act, 1996, hereinafter called “the Act” proved the claim to be bogus. In the course of enquiry, it was found that both the appellants have not claimed any benefit as members of Scheduled Caste during their education in Kerala, though substantial benefits, including financial aids were available to the students from Scheduled Caste community. Further, it was found in the course of enquiry that the appellants belong to the Naidu community whose forefathers migrated from other states to Kerala. On going through W.A.No.1396/2006 -:2:- the service records of the appellants' father who was in Government service it was found that his religion and caste are declared as Hindu and Naidu respectively. So far as their mother is concerned, she was also in Government service and her service records show that she belongs to Chettiar caste of Hindu community. The anthropological and genealogical study spread over a wide spectrum of relatives, including sisters, parents and other relatives and enquiry covering all of them established that the appellants are members of the Naidu community who do not belong to Gavara which is a Scheduled Caste community in Kerala. The Government accepted the report of scrutiny committee constituted under the Act and based on the study and the report made by KIRTADS, the first appellant was terminated from service and the second appellant appears to have taken a normal retirement which happened before completion of the proceedings under the Act. Appellants challenged the report of the scrutiny committee and also the decision of the Government before the learned single Judge in the writ petition. The learned single Judge elaborately considered the matter and wrote a 72 page judgment W.A.No.1396/2006 -:3:- wherein after considering all the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants came to a finding that the study conducted and the conclusions drawn up are unassailable. Consequently, writ petition was dismissed against which this writ appeal was filed. 2. Before us, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Smt.Seemanthini tried to substantiate that the findings in the KIRTAD's report and that of the scrutiny committee are factually and legally incorrect. Learned special Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Principal, R.E.C., Calicut and others v. C.B.Suresh Babu and another (2002 (1) I.L.R. Kerala Series 263) wherein the issue decided is exactly the same, that is, whether a member of the Naidu community can claim the benefit of Gavara. The clear finding of the Division Bench of this Court is that Gavara community which has recognition as Scheduled Caste community in Kerala are untouchables and they were traditionally engaged in the work of weaving of reed mats and bamboo baskets and the said work itself is called 'kavarapani' or 'Gavarapani'. In fact, Gavara in north W.A.No.1396/2006 -:4:- Malabar is known as kavara in southern Kerala and the community essentially live on making products from bamboo. Gents collect bamboo from forests and ladies make products like mats, baskets etc. from bamboo. Even though senior counsel canvassed the position that Gavara is a scheduled caste community in Kerala, the question in this case is not whether Gavara is a scheduled caste community or not but the real issue is whether the wrong certificate issued by the Tahsildar stating that the appellants who were members of the Naidu community as Gavara will make them members of the scheduled caste community. Even though Division Bench in the above referred judgment held that High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against the findings by the technical board like KIRTADS which extensively conduct Anthropogical and Geneological staudies before deciding the issue, we still felt that we should consider whether any injustice is done to the appellants. We have accordingly gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge who has taken so much of pains by reading and considering the entire report of KIRTADS, scrutiny committee and that of the Government. W.A.No.1396/2006 -:5:- However, we do not find any justification to interfere with the finding. 3. In addition to the findings of the learned single Judge, we notice that both the appellants have no explanation as to why they did not claim the benefit of scheduled caste community during their education though substantial financial aid was given in the 60's and 70's, which was in fact an attraction for members of the scheduled caste community to go to schools and colleges. Further, on going through the entire service records of both the appellants' parents and their SSLC book and all the available documents, the appellants' community is shown as Hindu-Naidu. The respondents have stated that in Tamil Nadu, Naidu belong to Other Backward Community and are not scheduled castes while in Andhra, they are members of the forward community. So much so, we find that KIRTADS have established by plethora of evidence and documents, particularly in the form of evidence that the appellants belong to the Naidu community and their forefathers are migrants and traditionally their community members are traders in Tamil Nadu and Andhra. After W.A.No.1396/2006 -:6:- going through the documents and the findings entered by the special body like KIRTADS which conducted extensive Anthropological and Genealogical study about the appellants and their family members, we do not find any scope for interference. What is further found is that second appellant's daughter who claimed the benefit of scheduled caste community for admission, filed writ petition, which was dismissed and appeal filed against the same was withdrawn. Writ appeal is therefore dismissed as devoid of any merit. ## **C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.** sl. **B.P. Ray, Judge.**