Kerala High Court
Keerthi P.Reman Aged 18 Years vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2014
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: K.M.Joseph, A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2014/18TH ASHADHA, 1936
WA.No. 908 of 2014 () IN WP(C).20143/2013
-------------------------------------------
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23RD JUNE, 2014 IN I.A.NO.7092/2014 AND
I.A.NO.8132/2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.20143/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
SINGLE JUDGE)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------
KEERTHI P.REMAN AGED 18 YEARS
D/O.P.REMANAN AND BINDU RANI.S., T.C. 2/2265
T.P.J.NAGAR 178, PLAMOODU, PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR
SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
& PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (SC/ST)DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER
VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS
KOZHIKODE - 673 017.
4. SRI.MANI BHOOSHAN
VIGILANCE OFFICER, VIGILANCE CELL
DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS, KOZHIKODE - 673 017.
5. THE DIRECTOR OF SC & ST DEPARTMENT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
6. THE DISTRICT TRIBAL WELFARE OFFICER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
7. THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
8. THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM -689 695.
9. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ACADEMIC)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
10. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
(CONVENOR SCREENING COMMITTEE)HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS
SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LALY VINCENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.M.JOSEPH
&
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JJ.
.............................................................
W.A.No.908 of 2014
.............................................................
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2014
JUDGMENT
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petitioner approached this Court seeking to challenge Exts.P17 and P19, the other reliefs sought essentially relate to Ext.P17.
2. Very briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner claims admission to the professional Degree Course (MBBS) in the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Her claim in short is that she belongs to Hindu Malai Pandaram, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe Community. For the year 2013-2014 an interim order was obtained but it is a common case that she did not actually get admission. Hence, she made the present application which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge.
3. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader Smt.Laly Vincent.
4. Ext.P17 is the Anthropological Report of the Vigilance W.A.No.908 of 2014 2 Officer under the provisions of the Kerala Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act). As per the same, it is found that the appellants claim that she belongs to Malai Pandaram Community cannot be accepted. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant would draw our attention to Section 29 of the Act which reads as follows:
"29. Cancellation of community certificate issued to a person to be proof against the relatives of the same blood.-Cancellation of a community certificate issued to any person by any competent authority shall be proof against the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe claims, as the case may be, of the consanguineal relations of that individual and shall be a ground for taking action under sub-section (1) of Section 11 against members of such family by the scrutiny committee or under sub-section (2) thereof by the Government."
5. He would in this context point out that appellants brother was treated as belonging to Malai Pandaram. He got admission to the Engineering course. Reference is made to Exts.P1 to P10 certificates. Those certificates have been issued under Section 30 of the Act which reads as follows:
W.A.No.908 of 2014 3
"30. Transitional Provision.- A community certificate issued by any authority competent to issue the same under the relevant rules or orders before the commencement of this Act, shall unless it is cancelled under the provisions of this Act, be valid and shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of this Act."
6. It is pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that Section 29 provides for the impact of cancellation of a community certificate being not confined only to the person himself whose certificate is cancelled but it encompasses the relatives also. But the reverse may not be true. Likewise it is pointed out that various certificates have been given by the officers to the members of the family indicating that they belonging to Malai Pandaram Community and those certificates hold good till they are interfered with as provided under the Act. Still further he drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat (2012 (1) KLT 383 (SC). We notice that in that case the Apex Court considered the matter relating to determination of the caste of the offspring in an intercaste marriage between a tribal and non-tribal. W.A.No.908 of 2014 4
7. In this case what is found by the expert agency is that the petitioners grandfather one Sri.Ponnan belonged to the Hindu Ezhava Community. It is also found that petitioners paternal grand mother one Smt.Thankamma Ally belongs to the Veerasaiva (Pandaram) Community which is included in the OBC list of the State but not ST. The petitioner's father married a lady whose parents were Ezhavas. The authority has essentially proceeded to find out, going by consanguineal connections and also the connections by way of matrimony that the appellant could not be treated as belonging to the Malai Pandaram Community. In this connection, no doubt, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant would point out that actually the paternal grandmother Smt.Thankamma Ally was a Malai Pandaram and he draws our attention to the certificates produced to support the same. When we put this question to the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that as far as the petitioner's brother is concerned, he got Engineering seat which is reserved for the Malai Pandaram Community and it is a mistake. According to her suspicion arose when he topped in the class from the list of scheduled Malai Pandaram Community. The matter was referred. After elaborate enquiry it is found that his claim that he belonged to Malai Pandaram was not correct. W.A.No.908 of 2014 5 Proceedings have been initiated against her father and brothers. It is also pointed out that proper enquiry can be conducted by the scrutiny committee if appellant approaches it.
8. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant then drew our attention to Section 6 of the Act. It is the scrutiny committee which should decide the issue and there is no decision by the scrutiny committee as of now and decision is now taken by the Vigilance Officer(Expert Agency), it is contended.
The writ petition is still pending. The appeal is filed against the interim order. As per the interim order, the learned Single Judge declined to grant reliefs to direct her to be considered for admission in the course of MBBS on the basis of entitlement as provided for scheduled tribe. We cannot hold that there is no basis at all in the order of the learned Single Judge. It may be true that the matter is yet to be considered by the scrutiny committee. There is material in the form of Exts.P17 and P19. We would think that the appellant has not been able to persuade us to take a different view. In such circumstances, we dismiss the appeal but we make it clear that while considering the case of the appellant, it will be done untrammelled by anything contained in our judgment W.A.No.908 of 2014 6 and the order of the learned Single Judge. We request the learned Single Judge before whom the matter comes as per roster, to give an out of turn hearing.
K.M.JOSEPH JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/