Kerala High Court
A.K.Babu vs State Of Kerala & Others on 20 July, 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/15TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 15038 of 2007 (M)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
A.K.BABU
LOWER DIVISION CLERK
COLLECTORATE MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION P.O.
MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.SMT.S.KARTHIKA
SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
SRI.M.R.ANISON
SRI.T.R.RAJESH
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTES
AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM.
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
MALAPPURAM.
BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SC/ST) SMT. P. SANTHAMMA
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI .P. C. SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DCS
WP(C).No. 15038 of 2007 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 20.07.1993 ISSUED
BY THE THAHSILDAR, PONNANI
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE ADVISE MEMO ISSUED BY THE PSC DATED 21.01.1998
TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.03.1999 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 03.05.1999
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 550/93/SCSTDD DATED 05.11.1993
EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 11324/G1/99/SC/STDD DATED 01.08.2001
EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.R-1(1) 35472/96/ GV DATED 03.05.2007
ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
DCS
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 15038 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 5th day of June, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to belong to Chakkliyan community, which is recognized as a scheduled caste community in the State of Kerala. With the strength of Ext.P2 community certificate certifying the petitioner as belonging to Chakkliyan community, which is recognized as a scheduled caste community in the State of Kerala, the petitioner submitted an application for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk before the 2nd respondent-Kerala Public Service Commission claiming reservation benefits also. Based on that certificate, the Public Service Commission processed his application and he was included in the supplementary list prepared for scheduled castes. In his turn, he was advised for appointment and he was so appointed. Subsequently, Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Public Service Commission directing him to show cause as to why his advise should not be cancelled since he does not belong to a scheduled caste community but to the Tholkollan community, which is recognized only an Other Backward Community in the State. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 reply to the same claiming that he is a scheduled caste belonging to the Chakkliyan community. The petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 12712/1999, which was disposed of on 7.7.2006 leaving it open to the Public Service Commission to take a final decision in the matter, after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was subsequently heard W.P(C) No. 15038 of 2007 -: 2 :- by the Public Service Commission and by Ext.P8 order, it was decided to cancel the advice and to direct the appointing authority to terminate the services of petitioner. It is challenging Ext.P8 order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"a. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P8 order issued by the 2nd respondent, since the same is issued in violation of the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Community Certificates Act, 1996.
b. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P8 order issued by the 2nd respondent, since the same is issued without authority of law under Rule 22(iii) of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure as also on the ground of violating the specific direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment dated 7.7.2006 in O.P.12712/99.
c. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as Scheduled Caste so long as Ext.P1 and P2 are in force and not deny S.C. benefits to the petitioner based on Ext.P6 G.O. d. to declare that Ext.P3 advice memo is valid in the eye of law and the same is not liable to be cancelled based on Ext.P6 G.O or otherwise at this distance of time."
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the decision of the Public Service Commission was based on Ext.P6 Government Order in relation to a person named Kumaran, with whom the petitioner has no connection whatsoever. According to the petitioner, as such, the reliance on Ext.P6 is clearly misplaced and therefore the action of the Public W.P(C) No. 15038 of 2007 -: 3 :- Service Commission is clearly vitiated. The petitioner further points out that by Ext.P2 community certificate, the petitioner's caste has been certified by the appropriate authority competent to do so, certifying the petitioner as belonging to Chakkliyan community, which is a scheduled caste community in the State of Kerala. According to him, insofar as Ext.P2 has not been cancelled by resorting to the procedure prescribed for the same, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of reservation as a scheduled caste. The petitioner therefore submits that Ext.P8 is clearly unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
3. The Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit stating that based on Ext.P6 Government Order, the Tahsildar, Ponnani Taluk, who issued Ext.P2 caste certificate to the petitioner, has intimated the Public Service Commission that the petitioner does not belong to Chakkliyan/Scheduled Caste community and he belongs to Tholkollan/OBC community. Since the petitioner's advice was solely based on his claim as a scheduled caste community and it has been reported that the petitioner does not belong to that community, the action taken by the Public Service Commission is perfectly in accordance with law, is the contention raised.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 4 submits that the Parvathy referred to in Ext.P6 Government Order is the mother of the petitioner and it is specifically held in Ext.P6 that the family W.P(C) No. 15038 of 2007 -: 4 :- of Parvathy belongs to Tholkollan community, which is an other backward community and not a scheduled caste community.
5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
6. I note that by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is continuing in service.
7. I am of opinion that since there is very serious dispute regarding the community status of the petitioner, it is necessary to verify the caste status of the petitioner by resorting to the procedure prescribed in the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Community Certificates Act, 1996. The procedure prescribed under the Act contemplates an anthropological study by the KIRTADS and a final decision considering the report of the KIRTADS by the scrutiny committee after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his contentions and evidence in support of his contention. I am of opinion that it is necessary to undertake that exercise in the case of the petitioner in view of the very serious disputes regarding the caste status of the petitioner. In fact, I am surprised that even after 5 years of filing this writ petition the respondent has not chosen to complete the enquiry as contemplated under the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
Respondents 1 and 4 shall see that an enquiry into the caste status of the petitioner in accordance with procedure prescribed under the Act is undertaken through KIRTADS W.P(C) No. 15038 of 2007 -: 5 :- and the scrutiny committee to decide the caste status of the petitioner, which shall be taken up and completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Proceedings pursuant to the order impugned in this writ petition shall only be in accordance with the decision to be taken by the scrutiny committee regarding the caste status of the petitioner subject, of course, to the right of the petitioner to challenge that order appropriately. Till the scrutiny committee takes a decision regarding the caste status of the petitioner, the interim order passed in this writ petition would continue to be in force. Needless to say, the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the enquiry to be conducted by the KIRTADS and the scrutiny committee. The petitioner shall be given all opportunities contemplated under the Act to prove his case.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/