Kerala High Court
Haripriya A.P.(Minor)By Haridas vs The Vigilance Officer
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/18TH MAGHA 1934
WP(C).No. 16198 of 2008 (C)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
HARIPRIYA A.P.(MINOR)BY HARIDAS
D/O.HARIDAS A.P., YADUSREE, WEST NIDUMBRAM,
P.O.CHOKKLI (VIA) THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670 672
REP. BY HER FATHER - HARIDAS A.P., AGED 51,
S/O.A.P.VELAYUDHAN VAIDYAR, -DO
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI
SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY
SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR
SMT.K.M.RAMYA
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER,
DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS, KOZHIKODE - 17.
2. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
EXAMINATIONS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP. BY SECRETARY,
SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR.
R1 TO R4 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT SANTHAMMA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-02-2013,
ALONG WITH WPC. 15665/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 16198 of 2008 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 28.11.97.
EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
FOR EDUCATION PURPOSE DATED 29.06.06.
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE CASTE OF
THE PETITIONER AS VANNAN.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE FATHER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 31.03.97.
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 26.04.1942 SHOWING
PETITIONER'S GRAND FATHER AS 'MANNAN' COMMUNITY.
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CASTER CERTIFICATE DATED 04.02.1993 SHWOING
PETITIONER'S MOTHER AS 'VANNAN' COMMUNITY.
EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C 6142/08 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH
COURT.
EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22.04.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 05.04.08.
EXT.P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B3/331/08/CEE DATED 16.05.08 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
LSN
K. VINOD CHANDRAN,J.
---------------------------------------
W.P. (c) NO. 16198 of 2008 &
W.P. (c) NO. 15665 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 report of the Vigilance Cell, Directorate of Kerala Institute for Research Training and Development Studies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (for short 'KIRTADS'), the Expert Agency constituted under the Kerala (SC/ST) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By Ext.P7 anthropological report the KIRTADS found that the claim of the petitioner to be a member of 'Vannan' community cannot be sustained and in view of her father's caste being established as 'Peruvannan', she is only entitled to the claim of 'Other Eligible Community' (OEC). The issue arose when the petitioner sought for reservation in admission to professional courses by virtue of Exts.P1, P1(a) and P2, claiming to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste community called 'Vannan'. However, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations referred the matter to the Expert Agency viz., KIRTADS for verification of the claim made by the petitioner.
W.P. (c) NO. 16198 of 2008 & W.P. (c) NO. 15665 of 2008 2
2. The petitioner contends that, she had produced Ext.P1 to P3 and P5 before the Expert Agency at the initial stage itself and subsequently by Ext.P8 produced Ext.P4. The contention of the petitioner before the Expert Agency was that she had been issued two certificates, Ext.P1 and P1(a) by the Tahsildar, Thalassery, stating that she belongs to 'Vannan' community. Ext.P2, the SSLC certificate also shows her community as 'Vannan'. Ext.P3, is the Community Certificate of the father of the petitioner issued by the Tahsildar, Ottappalam wherein the community is shown as 'Mannan'. It is the claim of the petitioner that even 'Mannan' is a Scheduled Caste community. Ext.P4, a partition deed executed in the family of the petitioner's father was relied on to show that even in 1943 the self declaration of the petitioner's grand father in the deed was that he belongs to 'Mannan' community. Ext.P5, is the Community Certificate issued to the mother of the petitioner which is not relevant for the consideration since, the issue of caste revolves around the father's community and the reservation would necessarily be applicable only from such determination.
W.P. (c) NO. 16198 of 2008 & W.P. (c) NO. 15665 of 2008 3
3. By Ext.P7, the Expert Agency purportedly considered the documents produced before them and came to the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to 'Hindu Peruvannan' community; the father of the petitioner having been determined to be belonging to the said community. In fact, on a reading of Ext.P7, it is apparent that the documents produced before the Expert Agency were considered before a report was prepared and the enquiry made by the agency also revealed that the petitioner's father's community was 'Hindu Peruvannan'. It is the claim of the petitioner that by Ext.P8; Ext.P4 was produced and no reference is made to the said document. Whether any reliance can be placed on Ext.P4 and the petitioner's father's birth can be traced to the persons who are parties to Ext.P4 would be in the realm of further evidence to be supplied by the petitioner.
4. The Screening Committee issued notice as per Ext.P9 based on the Expert Agency's report and it is also stated in the counter affidavit dated 5.07.2012 of the second respondent that, the Screening Committee has, by virtue of Government Order (G.O.(MS)25/2005/SCSTDD) dated 20.06.2005, accepted the report of the Expert Agency. However, there is no order pursuant W.P. (c) NO. 16198 of 2008 & W.P. (c) NO. 15665 of 2008 4 to Ext.P9 and it is not the case of any of the Official respondents that the Screening Committee has passed an order. Despite the assertion of the second respondent that the Screening Committees action accepting the Expert Agency's report is proper, no order is seen referred to in the counter affidavit nor is any produced by the Official respondents. However, it has to be noticed that as per the Act, the report of the Expert Agency is conclusive as far as the Screening Committee is concerned and hence, there would be no purpose served in directing the Screening Committee to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. Especially, at this distance of time, when the petitioner's claim for admission to the professional course in the reservation quota, no long survives.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the report of the KIRTADS and the denial of reservation in admissions would stand against the petitioner throughout her life and would disentitle her from claiming reservation from employment and for other purposes later on. The claim of the petitioner is that, her father's community has been subsequently altered to 'Vannan' by an order issued by the Competent W.P. (c) NO. 16198 of 2008 & W.P. (c) NO. 15665 of 2008 5 Authority, which however, is not available in the records of the present case. It is also pertinent that the petitioner's father claims to be a member of the Scheduled Caste and has later obtained an employment as a lecturer in a College. It would definitely be relevant whether the father of the petitioner has claimed the benefit of reservation as member of the Scheduled Caste community.
6. In the context of the Screening Committee having not passed an order and the report of the Expert Agency being conclusive as for as the Screening Committee is concerned; this Court, looked into the provisions of the Act and found sub-sec.(2) of Sec.9 which reads as under.
S.9(2). "The report of the Expert Agency shall be conclusive proof for or against the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes claim, as the case may be, of the person reported upon, unless found contrary by the Scrutiny Committee, after due procedure". The Scrutiny Committee alone, as per the above provision, can deviate from the findings of the Expert Agency. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Secretary, (SC/ST) Development Department, Thiruvananthapuram, is also the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. He is the Officer shown as representing the State of Kerala, the 3rd respondent and hence W.P. (c) NO. 16198 of 2008 & W.P. (c) NO. 15665 of 2008 6 necessary directions could be issued to him. In any event, I direct that Scrutiny Committee under the Kerala (SC/ST) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, represented by the Secretary,(SC/ST)DevelopmentDepartment, Thiruvananthapuram, be impleaded as the additional 5th respondent, suo-motu.
7. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, it is directed that the Scrutiny Committee shall in accordance with the Act consider Ext.P7 report of the Expert Agency after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner shall within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment approach the Scrutiny Committee along with all necessary papers relied on by the petitioner to establish her claim. The Scrutiny Committee shall then fix a date for hearing within a period of one month thereafter, and shall finalise the same passing orders in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of hearing.
The writ petition is allowed, however with no costs.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE.
True Copy P.A to Judge lsn/-