Kerala High Court
A.H.Thankappan vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2019
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
C.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 8TH MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 22501 of 2009
PETITIONER/S:
1 A.H.THANKAPPAN
T.C.16/1715(12) KUZHIVAYAL LANE, GOUREESA PATTOM,
PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 DR.SANGEETHA D/O.A.H.THANKAPPAN
ALAKAPURI, T.C.16/1715(12), KUZHIVAYAL LANE, GOUREESA
PATTOM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 SARATH BABU S/O.A.H.THANKAPPAN
ALAKAPURI, T.C.16/1715(12), KUZHIVAYAL LANE, GOUREESA
PATTOM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
SRI.A.V.JOJO
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY.
SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE
MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
5 DIRECTOR, KIRTADS, DIRECTORATE OF
KIRTADS, KOZHIKKODU-17.
WPC. 22501/2009 &
18515/2011 2
6 REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LALY VINCENT
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. POOJA SURENDRAN
SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SC FOR RBI
SRI. JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) SC FOR RBI
SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.11.2018, ALONG WITH W.P(C).18515/2011, THE COURT ON
28.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC. 22501/2009 &
18515/2011 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940
WP(C).No. 18515 of 2011
PETITIONER/S:
A.H.THANKAPPAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.HANUMAN, ALAKAPURI, T.C.16/1715, GRA 445,
GOWREESAPATTOM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,REP.BY GOVERNOR,
RBI, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
MUMBAI-1.
2 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
3 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER RESERVE BANK
OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B.NO.6507,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
4 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, BAKERY JUNCTION,
P.B.NO.6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
WPC. 22501/2009 &
18515/2011 4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.11.2018, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO. 22501 OF 2009. THE COURT ON
28.01.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C) 22501/2009 ,WP(C).18515/2011 ] The question that arises for consideration in these cases relates to the caste status of the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22501 of 2009 who is the sole petitioner in the second writ petition also. The second and third petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 22501 of 2009 are the daughter and son respectively of the first petitioner. According to the petitioners, they belong to the Boyan community which is included in the list of Scheduled Castes as item No. 13 in the First Schedule of the Constitution. It is contended that, the Boyan community consists of persons who were mainly engaged in the work of digging wells and canals and other earth works. Placing reliance on a Book titled 'Castes and Tribes of Southern India', it is contended that Boyan is also referred to as 'Odde' as evident from the extracted portion of the book produced as Ext.P1. 'Oddes' are WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 5 described as tank-diggers, well-diggers and road makers who live in detached settlements, the 'Odde Huts''. According to the petitioners, their forefathers were engaged in all types of earth works and were referred to as 'Mannu Oddes'. They were nomadic people who used to establish settlements wherever they could find sufficient work of deepening wells, repairing tanks etc. They used to eat all types of food including pork, field rats etc and used to consume liquor. The forefathers of the petitioner are alleged to have been brought from Madhura to Kerala by the Thirumala Nayakan for digging wells and for earth works. Therefore, the identity of Nayakan also got attached to them. As a result, they used to be referred to as Nayakan/Naickan. The first petitioner used to reside in Azhakathu Koodaram. According to him, the huts where boyans reside are known as 'Koodaram'.
2. It is the case of the first petitioner that, in Kodakara, when he was in his teens, there was another hamlet of the Boyan WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 6 community, namely 'Karivanoor Koodaram'. One Shri. M.P. Rajan was residing in Karivanoor Koodaram. Both the first petitioner and M.P. Rajan were studying in Christ College, Irinjalakuda. Shri. M.P. Rajan, who was living in similar conditions, was treated as Boyan and Scheduled Caste status was conferred on him. However, the first petitioner was considered to be a person belonging to other backward communities ('OBC' for short). This was for the reason that his community had been wrongly mentioned as Hindu-Naickan. Ext.P3 is the extract of the Register of Admissions maintained at the Government LP School, Kodakara showing the caste status of the first petitioner. The petitioner contends that, his caste name had been given wrongly because of the illiteracy and ignorance of his father. Subsequently, when he was in the College, he appears to have taken steps by preferring an application to the Government to correct the entry regarding his caste in Ext.P3. The Government directed the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram to issue a proper community WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 7 certificate to the first petitioner. It is contended that the Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry by himself as well as through the Village Officer and convinced himself that the first petitioner belonged to the Boyan, a Scheduled Caste community. Accordingly, a Community Certificate is said to have been issued to him, which was incorporated in his SSLC Book. Thereafter, he was being treated as the member of a Schedule Caste and was being extended all the benefits available to the member of a Scheduled Caste.
3. While so, the second petitioner who is the daughter of the first petitioner appeared for the Entrance Examination for admission to a medical course. Though she was successful at the Entrance Examination, the Controller of Entrance Examinations refused to permit her to participate in the interview for the reason that the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram refused to issue a Caste Certificate showing her caste status as Boyan. WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 8 Thereupon, she filed O.P. No.11155 of 1996 before this Court challenging the said action. This Court by an interim order permitted her to participate in the interview for admission to the MBBS Course. The said order is evidenced herein by Ext.P5 dated 16.7.1996. This Court found that, there was prima facie evidence regarding the caste status of the second petitioner since her father had been appointed as Clerk Grade II in the Reserve Bank of India treating him to be a member belonging to the Boyan community. When a dispute arose regarding the entry to be made in the School Certificate of the first petitioner in the year 1970, the Tahsildar had issued a community certificate stating that he was a Boyan. Therefore, this Court directed one seat to be kept vacant. Meanwhile, the dispute regarding the caste status of the second petitioner was referred to KIRTADS for verification. The Director of KIRTADS thereupon conducted an enquiry and concluded that the second petitioner was born in Odde Naickan community and WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 9 therefore, the entry of her caste in the SSLC Book as Boyan was incorrect. Thereupon, the second petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 24436 of 1996 in O.P. No. 11155 of 1996 seeking further orders permitting her to be interviewed. As per Ext.P6 order, this Court directed the second petitioner to be interviewed and to be admitted in one of the Government Colleges subject to satisfying other conditions. Accordingly, she was admitted to the MBBS Course, which she has completed. She is now a qualified medical practitioner.
4. The third petitioner, who is the son of the first petitioner, had filed a similar writ petition when a dispute arose with respect to his caste status while he was an applicant for admission to the Engineering Course. He was also similarly admitted to the Engineering course on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court. Both the writ petitions, O.P. Nos. 11155 of 1996 and 14965 of 1998 were finally disposed of by this Court as per judgment WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 10 dated 7.7.2005, evidenced herein by Ext.P7, permitting the Scrutiny Committee to proceed with the enquiry that was commenced under the provisions of Act 11 of 1996. The petitioners were directed to be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Until final orders were passed, the interim orders granted by this Court were directed to be in force.
5. Thereafter, the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee were completed and by Ext.P10 order dated 15.7.2009 it was found that, the claim of the petitioners that they belonged to the Boyan community was without any basis. It was found that they belonged to the Odde Naickan community which belong to the category of OBC. Thus, the claim that they belonged to a Scheduled Caste, was rejected. Pursuant to Ext.P10, the Government passed an order Ext.P11 dated 31.7.2009 directing that the service of the first petitioner who was the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, be terminated and another eligible member of the Scheduled Caste be WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 11 appointed. Exts. P10 and P11 orders are under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 22501 of 2009. The said writ petition was admitted on 7.8.2009 and an interim order of stay of Ext.P11 directing termination of the first petitioner was granted. However, it was made clear that the first petitioner shall not be granted any promotion in service except after getting orders from this Court. It was further made clear that the said interim order would operate only as regards the first petitioner and not with respect to petitioners 2 and 3.
6. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the first petitioner continued in service and retired on attaining superannuation on 30.6.2011. However, his Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, leave encashment, 1/3 rd of pension commutation and monthly pension were not paid to him. As per an order dated 4.7.2011 it was ordered by the Assistant General Manager that the said retirement benefits would not be disbursed to WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 12 him unless he produced specific orders from this Court directing the RBI to release such benefits. It was challenging Ext.P2 that W.P. (C) No. 18515 of 2011 was filed by the first petitioner. In the said writ petition, as per an interim order dated 18.11.2011 a direction to disburse all the retirement benefits due to him subject to the result of the writ petition was issued.
7. In the above factual matrix, the essential question that requires to be considered is whether the claim of the petitioners that they belong to the Boyan community and are entitled to the benefits available to a Scheduled Caste community is sustainable or not. It is vehemently contended by Adv. A.X. Varghese who appears for the petitioners that they belong to the Boyan community. Reliance is placed on extracts of books written by various authors who had conducted research into the various castes of the erstwhile era to contend that, the Boyans lived in settlements that were referred to as 'Koodarams'. The house name of the petitioners WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 13 being 'Azhakathu koodaram', the contention is that, their caste status is conclusively established by their house name itself. One Shri. M.P. Rajan of 'Karivanoor Koodaram' who was studying in the same College as the first petitioner had in similar circumstances been treated as a Boyan and extended all the benefits available to a Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, there is no justification for treating the petitioners differently, it is contended. The learned counsel lays great stress on the fact that the initial wrong entry of his caste as 'Hindu Naickan' had been corrected subsequently by the Tahsildar after a proper enquiry. The correction as Boyan cannot, at this length of time, be interfered with and altered to the disadvantage of the petitioners. The first petitioner who was hardly 18 years old at the time when the correction was made, was not in a position to influence the authorities and to procure a caste certificate in his favour, it is contended. The Scrutiny Committee had not taken note of the crucial fact that the first petitioner was WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 14 living in a 'Koodaram'. Therefore, Ext.P10, according to the learned counsel is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Ext.P12 produced by the first petitioner subsequently is relied upon to contend that, the said certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the year 1970 conclusively proves the caste status of the petitioners and that the same is not liable to be interfered with at this length of time.
8. Per contra, the Special Government Pleader refers to the various provisions of the Kerala Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 11 of 1996' for short) and the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ' Rules' for short) to contend that the burden to prove the caste status of the petitioners is on them. They had not produced any document before the Scrutiny Committee to prove their caste status. Therefore, they had not discharged the burden cast on WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 15 them. Nor has any document been produced before this Court in support of their contentions questioning the validity of Ext.P10. It is contended that, the petitioners had deprived a Scheduled Caste candidate of the benefits due to the said person, by wrongfully enjoying the benefits that they were not entitled to. Therefore, it is contended that, going by the provisions of Act 11 of 1996 as well as the Rules, appropriate action should follow.
9. The counsel appearing for the RBI points out that the first petitioner was appointed on 25.4.1979 against a vacancy that was reserved for a member of Scheduled Caste. It was relying on the community certificate produced by the first petitioner that he was appointed. On 2.5.2006 he was promoted as Manager. He has retired from service on 30.6.2011. The counsel places reliance on certain decisions where even pensionary benefits were denied to persons who were found to have obtained employment by producing certificates that were false or fabricated. Therefore, it is WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 16 contended that, the first petitioner is not entitled to be paid his retirement benefits. For the above reasons, it is contended that, the writ petitions are only to be dismissed.
10. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that, in this case there has been no fraud. Even the Scrutiny Committee has not found the petitioners to be guilty of any fraudulent act. The report of the Scrutiny Committee only refers to the community certificate produced as 'false'. Therefore, even if it is found that the community certificate was false, no action as directed in Ext.P11 could be initiated. In the present case, since the petitioner had already retired, it is contended that, there is no justification for denying to him the pensionary benefits that are legitimately due to him for the service actually rendered, without cause for complaints from any quarter. The counsel therefore contends that the writ petitions are only to be allowed.
11. Heard. The facts in these cases are not in dispute. It WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 17 is not in dispute that, initially when the first petitioner was admitted to School, his caste had been entered as 'Hindu Naickan' in the admission register of the School. Though the contention is that the said entry was a mistake committed by the father who was illiterate and ignorant, the fact remains that he was treated as an OBC throughout his school days. It was when he was in College that, steps were taken to correct his caste status as Boyan. According to the first petitioner, the Government had been approached for the purpose and pursuant to orders issued by the Government, the Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry, found that he was a person belonging to the Boyan community and had issued a caste certificate to him. However, neither the Government order on which reliance is placed nor the proceedings of the enquiry that is said to have been conducted by the Tahsildar is produced. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain whether the Government had passed such an order, whether the Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry as WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 18 alleged and whether he had satisfied himself that the first petitioner was a person belonging to the Boyan community or not. The caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar as stated above was also not produced along with the writ petition. However, along with I.A. No. 1031 of 2012 Ext.P12 has been produced stating that it is a copy of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar. But, a perusal of Ext.P12 shows that, it does not bear a date. Though it states that the petitioner is a member of the Boyan community in the list of Scheduled Castes, the Certificate also states that he is a member of Naickan community. Be that as it may, the basis on which the Tahsildar had arrived at the conclusion in Ext.P12, is not at all forthcoming. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the said certificate could be of any help to the petitioners in impeaching Ext.P10.
12. A perusal of Ext.P10 shows that, the Vigilance Wing of KIRTADS had conducted an anthropological research of the case of the second petitioner and submitted a report. It is stated in WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 19 Ext.P10 that the Enquiry Report conclusively revealed that she and her parents do not belong to the Boyan community. Their community has been correctly ascertained as Odde Naickan community. The said community is listed as an OBC.
13. The first petitioner had appeared before the Scrutiny Committee and produced documents in support of his case that he and his family belong to the Boyan community. The said documents were also examined by the Scrutiny Committee. Ext.P10 refers to a Genealogical study conducted by the KIRTADS which prove beyond doubt that the petitioner and family belong to the Odde Naickan community and that his caste name was changed as Boyan. The said anthropological report dated 28.6.1996 of the KIRTADS is evidenced herein by Ext.P13. It has been found in Ext.P13 that the father of the first petitioner belonged to the Odde Naickan community. The study that was conducted in Kodakara and Marathakara areas of Thrissur District as well as WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 20 Thiruvananthapuram city states that the Odde Naickan community was also engaged in earth work, digging of wells and tanks. They were also known as Odden or as Naickan. Shri. Hanuman, father of the first petitioner belonged to the Odde Naickan community. His wife also belonged to the same community. They had six children, the first petitioner is one of them. The other sons are living in Kodakara. The colonies of Odde Naickan community are also called Koodaram. It is stated in Ext.P13 that his caste name was originally entered as Naickan but that he somehow managed to alter it as Boyan subsequently. The first petitioner's maternal father also belonged to the very same community. Taking into account the genealogical data collected by the KIRTADS, it has been concluded that the first petitioner and his family including petitioners 2 and 3 belong to the Odde Naickan community. No reliable material or evidence has been produced by the petitioners in these proceedings to impeach the correctness of either the data or the conclusions in WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 21 Ext.P13. The documents produced and relied upon by the petitioners are only books written about the castes of an erstwhile era. Such information has no relevance in deciding whether the petitioners belong to the Boyan community or not. Therefore, it is found that Exts. P10 and P11 proceedings issued on the basis of Ext.P13 study conducted by the KIRTADS are fully justified. It is clear that the first petitioner had when he was studying in the College somehow got his caste status changed to Boyan and had been enjoying the benefits available to a Scheduled Caste community. The caste certificate on which he places reliance has therefore been rightly cancelled by Ext.P10.
14. It is not in dispute that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the first petitioner had continued in service and had retired as an Assistant General Manager from the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, he had served out his entire term of office and what remains to be considered is only whether he is entitled to his WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 22 retirement benefits. Since it is not in dispute that he has worked throughout the period that he was in service, it has to be examined whether the alteration in his caste status would disentitle him to his retirement benefits or not. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Prakash v. State of Kerala (2002 (2) K.L.T. 580), where a learned Single Judge of this Court has, after considering the provisions of Act 11 of 1996 distinguished the falsity of a certificate from a certificate fraudulently obtained as follows:
"14. Further, no-one has a case that the petitioner has acted fraudulently. The worst allegation against him in Ext.P7 is that he has made a false claim. The dictionary meaning of "false" is, wrong, incorrect, not genuine, artificial, sham, pretended etc. But the dictionary meaning of "fraud" is, deceiving somebody illegally in order to make money or obtain goods, and that of "fraudulent" is, deceitful or dishonest. "Fraudulent" is the adjective and "fraudulently" is the adverb. "deceit' involves deliberate misleading."
The learned counsel also places reliance on the decision in Anila v. WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 23 State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 112) where a Division Bench of this Court has in a similar situation held as follows: "7. But we notice that in view of document No. 78
(judgment in O.P.274/1980 dated 30.10.1980) of this Court the petitioners mother got a declaration in her favour that she belongs to scheduled tribe Malayaraya community and this Court further ordered to grant the benefit of that declaration to her children also. Thereafter the case shown in the records of her children who are appellants herein were corrected and they were granted educational benefits. Such correction enabled them to get employment also under the scheduled tribe community. Annexure A judgment of Division Bench of this Court also upheld the rights of the appellants in this regard. Therefore, we notice that the appellants got employment and various service benefits on the strength of the valid orders then in force, though, now it is found that the basis of those orders was wrong. We also notice that in this case there is no fraud played from the part of the petitioners and the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in Prakash v. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLT 580) will be applicable in this case. We feel that denial of scheduled tribe status to the appellants will operate only prospectively from the date of issuance of WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 24 Annexure B. The benefits accrued to them till the date of Annexure B shall not be disturbed. In other words the employment secured by them or any promotions granted to them shall not be cancelled or disturbed, but from the date of Annexure B order, the appellants are not entitled to get any benefit available to members of the scheduled tribe. If any benefit like promotion is given to appellants 2 and 3, the same can be cancelled by the competent authority. It is also ordered that the petitioners or their children are not entitled to claim any benefit available to scheduled tribes from the date of Annexure B."
15. The learned Special Government Pleader has on the other hand canvassed for the proposition that since the caste certificate, on the basis of which the first petitioner had secured employment and the other petitioners their admissions, has been found to be false, the appointment as well as the admissions have to be cancelled. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision in Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir ((2008) 13 SCC 170). In the said case, it has been found that WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 25 the caste certificate produced there was false to the knowledge of the person claiming the benefit. Since fraud was found, it was found that no benefit would accrue on the basis of the certificate. Reliance is placed on the decision in R. Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala ((2004) 2 SCC 105) to contend that, appointment of a person to a civil post meant for the appointment of a Scheduled Caste person on the basis of a false caste certificate has to be cancelled. On behalf of the Reserve Bank of India, the respective counsel also advanced identical contentions.
16. An examination of the decisions on which reliance has been placed reveals that they were all cases in which the person who had obtained the benefit on the basis of the false caste certificate was found to have committed fraud. In the present case, the authorities do not have a case that, fraud was committed by the first petitioner. As already found above, in this case there is no material or evidence to show under what circumstances the WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 26 Tahsildar had issued Ext.P12 certificate to the first petitioner describing his caste as Boyan. It cannot be disputed that the Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue the caste certificate. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had knowledge regarding his ineligibility to claim the benefits. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, no allegation of fraud is made against the petitioners. Therefore, even while accepting the findings in Ext.P10 and P13 that the caste certificate issued to the first petitioner was false, it has to be held that there is no evidence of fraud in this case. I do so.
17. Apart from the above, in the present case, the first petitioner has served out his term of office and has retired from service. The clock cannot be turned back now to retrieve what has been lost to a potential Scheduled Caste candidate by virtue of the appointment granted to the first petitioner. Therefore, no purpose will be served by cancelling his appointment. He has admittedly WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 27 worked, and without complaints from any quarter. Therefore, it is only in the fitness of things that the retirement benefits due to him by virtue of the service put in, is disbursed to him. In the case of the other petitioners, it is stated that, the second petitioner had already completed her studies and has become a qualified medical practitioner. The third petitioner had become an Engineer. Since the qualifications acquired by them are not challenged on any grounds, they shall be entitled to the benefits of the qualifications acquired by them. At the same time, the petitioners or their family members shall not be entitled to claim any benefits on the basis of the false caste certificate issued to the first petitioner by the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram. Ext.P11 order shall therefore govern in so far as all other matters are concerned, except to the extent of the benefits granted hereinabove in the case of the petitioners.
In the result, it is ordered as follows:
i) The challenge against Exts. P10 and P11 in W.P.(C) No. WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 28 22501 of 2009 is repelled. Ext.P11 is sustained with the modification that, since the first petitioner has retired from service, no further action need be taken against him to cancel his appointment or to deny to him his retirement benefits and permitting petitioners 2 and 3 to enjoy the benefits of the educational qualifications acquired by them.
ii) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 18515 of 2011 shall be paid all his retirement benefits, if not already paid, calculated on the service put in by him. All his benefits shall be paid, if not already paid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
iii) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any benefit on the basis of the Caste Certificate Ext.P12 or on the basis that they belong to the Boyan community in future for any purpose whatsoever.
iv) Both the writ petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 29 sb APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.22501 OF 2009 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS;
EXHIBIT P1 : PHOTO COPY OF THE PORTION OF THE BOOK VOLUME I WHICH DESCRIBES BOYAN AS "ODDE".
EXHIBIT P2 : PHOTO COPY OF THE ANOTHER VOLUME OF THE SAME BOOK WHICH DEALS WITH THE ORIGIN OF THE CASTE. EXHIBIT P3 : PHOTO COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE REGISTER OF ADMISSION MAINTAINED T L.P. SCHOOL, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7.7.2003 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.7.1996. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.1.1996 IN C.M.P. NO. 24436/96 IN O.P. NO. 11155/96 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.7.2005 IN O.P. NO. 11155/1996 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 27.4.2009.
EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 30.8.2008.
EXHIBIT P10 : IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.7.2009. EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.7.2009 IN G.O.(MS) NO. 57/2009/SCSTDD EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR, KIRTADS.
WPC. 22501/2009 & 18515/2011 30 EXHIBIT P14 : PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF "THE TRIBES AND CASTE OF COCHIN."
EXHIBIT P15 : PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BOOK "INDIA'S COMMUNITIES'.
EXHIBIT P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.8.1950.
//true copy// sd/-
P.S. TO JUDGE
sb
WPC. 22501/2009 &
18515/2011 31
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO. 18515 OF 2011
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 30/06/2011.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
4/7/2011.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15/7/09 OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OF VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO.
57/2009/SCSTDD DATED 31.7.2009.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 7.8.2009 IN W.P.(C) 22501/2009 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
//true copy// sd/-
P.S. TO JUDGE sb