Kerala High Court
Vinesh.R vs State Of Kerala
Author: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 22342 of 2012 (P)
---------------------------
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
----------------------
VINESH.R., AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.REGHUNATHAN NAIR ,
THADATHIL HOUSE, VETTIPPUZHA, PUNALUR P.O.,KOLLAM DIST
BY ADVS.SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD
SMT.K.S.HASEENA
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM-695 001
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691601
3. THASILDAR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DIST-691 695
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DIST-691 305
5. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFFI
R5 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
WP(C).No. 22342 of 2012 (P)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
-----------------
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
----------------------
EXT.P1. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING
CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2. COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING
CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER
EXT.P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 23.8.12 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENATION DATED 3.9.12 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER'S FATHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.9.12 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
----------------------
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
VK
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.22342/2012-P
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication issued by the Tahsildar, produced as Ext.P5 wherein, the view taken is that as the petitioner's community, namely, Hindu Chakkala Nair is not included among the list of Other Backward Classes, a certificate showing that the petitioner belongs to OBC cannot be issued.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner is a participant for selection to the post of Draftsman Grade-II. In connection with the selection process, petitioner was directed to produce a Non-Creamy Layer Certificate to claim the benefits of OBC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in a Judgment reported in Gopalakrishnan v. P.S.C [2001(1) KLT 160], this Court took the view that since item 10 in List III of Other Backward Classes included in Part I of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules refers to "Chakkala" alone and not to "Chakkala Nair", the benefit could not be extended to "Chakkala Nair". In the Judgment reported in Bindu Ganesh and others v. State of Kerala and others [2007 (4) KHC 59] also, W.P.(C). No.22342/2012 -:2:- another learned Single Judge upheld the order of the Government denying the benefit available to "Chakkala" to "Chakkala Nair". The petitioner wants a reconsideration of the same.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission and the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Judgment in Bindu Ganesh's case (supra) will show that the Government considered the report of Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes which was submitted after extensive study and agreed with the same. Therefore, those Judgments do not require any reconsideration.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the community is really backward both educationally and socially. They are also economically backward. Therefore, they are entitled for the Constitutional protection and the denial of the same will violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7. Apart from the assertion made by the petitioner, no other materials have been relied upon in the writ petition to have a reconsideration of the decisions of this Court. In the last of the Judgment reported in Bindu Ganesh's case [2007 (4) KHC 59], this Court held as follows in para.12:
"The aforesaid factual findings of the Commission, on statistics, are not challenged by the petitioners. Therefore, even if 'Chakkala Nair' has been identified as educationally W.P.(C). No.22342/2012 -:3:- and economically poor, the advice of the Commission to the Government that the community 'Chakkala Nair' does not satisfy the requirements and the criteria involved to identify backward class of citizens, cannot be found fault with. Equally, the impugned decision of the Government cannot also be interfered with."
I respectfully agree with the same.
8. It may be a matter for the Government or other authorities to consider, if the petitioner and the organisation representing the community take up the matter afresh. But that is far from saying that the view taken by this Court in the Judgments rendered are wrong on factual and legal basis. Evidently, the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes had conducted a study in the whole matter. In the light of the various aspects shown above, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms