Kerala High Court
Savitha T.K vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2025
2025:KER:76441
W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32814 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SAVITHA T.K.,
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.ELDHO N.P.,THYKKUTTATHIL (H), PANCODE P.O.,
VADAVUCODE, ERNAKULAM -682310.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SMT.SHILPA SOMAN
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHEDULED
CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKAND, KERALA-682030.
3 TALUK OFFICE,
REPRESENTED BY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM-683543.
4 VILLAGE OFFICE,
REPRESENTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE,
IYKARANADU NORTH, ERNAKULAM- 682311.
2025:KER:76441
W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022
:2:
5 ADDL R5: KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004
( (ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
19/08/2025 IN IA 3/25 OF WP (C) 32814/22)
6 ADDL R6: THE DISTRICT OFFICER
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISISION, KARSHAKA RD,
ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682016
( (ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
19/08/2025 IN IA 3/25 OF WP (C) 32814/22)
BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER - SRI.ROBIN RAJ M.K.
FOR ADDL. R6 - SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:76441
W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022
:3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.32814 of 2022
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition has been filed seeking for a declaration that the petitioner belongs to Pulayan Caste and is entitled to all the benefits of Pulayan Community, including the community certificate and further, for a direction to the 4 th respondent to issue a community certificate to the petitioner showing that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner is a person who belongs to the Hindu 'Pulayan' Community, which is a Scheduled Caste, included as a recognised Scheduled Caste community as per Second Schedule of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1. The petitioner was born in the Pulayan 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 :4: community and she was raised as a Pulayan following the Hindu Pulayan customs and traditions with all the disadvantages attached to the caste. She was treated so by the Pulayan community members. In Ext.P2 SSLC certificate, the petitioner's caste is shown as Pulayan. Since birth, the petitioner was born and brought up by her parents who belong to the Hindu Pulayan Community.
Thereafter, the petitioner got married to one Eldho N.P, who belongs to the Syrian Jacobite Christian religion on 31.01.2011 and the marriage was registered on 21.02.2011 as evident from Ext.P3 marriage certificate. The petitioner before her marriage had gone through the process of baptism and has nominally changed her religion from Hinduism to Christianity. The petitioner submits that such a change of the religion of the petitioner was done only for the purpose of marriage and even after the marriage, the petitioner continued in the social backwardness attached to her caste. It is the contention of the petitioner that even after marriage, the petitioner continued to suffer the social, economic and educational backwardness and the society around always treated her as a person belonging to Pulayan community living in the same social 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 :5: tenet and the said situation has not been altered due to marriage.
Even after the marriage, the petitioner was granted Exts.P4 and P5 community certificates showing that the petitioner belongs to the Hindu Pulayan community. Thereafter by Ext.P6 the petitioner applied for a community certificate before the Village Office, lykaranadu North. The officials of the Village Office informed the petitioner that, community certificate stating that she belongs to the Hindu Pulayan community cannot be granted as she has converted her religion from Hinduism to Christianity. The petitioner submits that she has been included in the Scheduled Caste supplementary shortlist for the post of Assistant Salesman (Wayanad) in Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and the non issuance of Community Certificate will affect the petitioner's career prospects. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. By an interim order dated 17.10.2022, a direction was issued to the 4th respondent to issue a provisional community certificate to the petitioner subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. Now the Kerala Public Service Commission has issued 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 :6: Ext.P9 communication wherein the candidates were obliged to upload original community certificate(which is not provisional).
4. The Special Government Pleader for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent submits that it is true that the petitioner belongs to Hindu-Pulayan Community, but after her marriage to a person belonging to Christian religion, after going through the process of baptism and changing her religion from Hinduism to Christianity, the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of a caste certificate treating her as belonging to Hindu-Pulayan community. It is also submitted that after her conversion to Christianity she could only be treated as a person belonging to 'Scheduled Caste converted to Christianity', which is considered as OBC in the State of Kerala.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. The specific case of the petitioner is that her caste does not change by marriage and she continued to suffer the social, economic and educational backwardness. Article 16(4) provides that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 :7: provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Kerala Pattikajathi Samrakshana Samithy and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [1995 KHC 537] specifically refers to paragraph 31 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
31. The decisions reported in C. M. Arumugan v, S. Rajgopal 1976 (1) SCC 863. Guntur Medical College v. T. Mohan Rao 1976 (3) SCC 411 and Khazan Singh v. Union of India AIR 1930 Del. 60 relied upon by the counsel for respondent No. 8, in our view, are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in their decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 including the portion referred to by the counsel for R-8 has conclusively decided the status of a caste. Justice Jeevan Reddy giving the leading judgment in Para.778-B referred to the decision reported in K. G. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka 1985 Supp. SCC 714. for the purpose of the definition of caste. In the said decision, Justice Venkataramiah defined the caste in the following manner:
"A caste is an association of families which practices the custom of endogamy i.e. which permits marriages amongst the members belonging to such families only. Caste rules prohibit its members from marrying outside their caste. ............... A caste is based on various factors', sometimes it may be a Class, 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 :8: a race or a racial unit. A caste has nothing to do with wealth. The caste of a person is governed by his birth in a family. Certain ideas of ceremonial purity are peculiar to each caste. ......... Even the choice of occupation of members of caste was predetermined in many cases, and the members of a particular castes were prohibited from engaging themselves in other types of callings, professions or occupations. Certain occupations were considered to be degrading or impure".
Justice Jeevan Reddy in Para.779 held as follows:
"The above material makes it amply clear that a caste is nothing but a social class a socially homogeneous class. It is also an occupational grouping, with this difference that its membership is hereditary. One is born into it. Its membership is involuntary".
While summarising the answers to the various questions in Para.859, Justice Jeevan Reddy expressed their view in sub para (3) as follows:
"A caste can be and quite often is a social class in India. If it is backward socially, it would be a backward class for the purpose of Art.16(4). Among non Hindus, there are several occupational groups, sects and denominations, which for historical reasons, are socially backward. They too represent backward social collectivities for the purposes of Art.16(4)".
In the same paragraph, it is further held as follows:
"Since caste represents an existing, identifiable social group/class encompassing an overwhelming minority of the country's population, one can well begin with it and then go to other groups, sections and classes."
Caste of a person is determined by his birth and further that the caste is considered as a class for the purpose of 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 :9: reservation under Art.16(4) of the Constitution of India. There is absolutely no scope for a change in the status of the caste. A person cannot be allowed to change his caste. It cannot be the choice or an option of an individual to belong to a particular caste. A caste is classified as backward class for the purpose of reservation. Therefore, a person cannot be allowed to change the caste. If so permitted it would be defeating the very purpose for which the classification is made. The adoption, marriage and conversion of faith of individual from one caste to another as permitted by the Law of Adoption or marriage have no relevance for the purpose of claiming the benefit of reservation under Art.16(4) of the Constitution of India. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the 8th respondent reported in AIR 1980 Del. 60 is not a good law in the light of various decisions on the point in issue. The other decisions referred by the learned counsel dealing with re-conversion and thereafter claiming the benefits of his original caste have no relevance to the facts and circumstances of our case. On the contrary a Division Bench in D. Neelima v. Dean P. G. Studies A. P. Agricultural University., Hyderabad AIR 1993 AP 229 held that a Hindu caste girl marrying a S.T. boy will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation merely because of marriage. In K. Shantha Kumar v. State of Mysore 1971 (1) Mys. LJ. 21 it was held that by adoption the adoptee cannot destroy or nullify the advantage of the environmental conditions of his upbringing for 16 years by his natural parents and claim the benefits of reservation. Another decision of Delhi High Court in Mrs. Urmila Ginda v. Union of India AIR 1975 Del. 115 held that a change of religion for the purpose of claiming reservation is invalid. We 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 : 10 : have also in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others ILR 1995 (2) Ker. 140 (W.A. Nos. 187 and 416 of 1992, dated 18th January, 1995) has held as follows:
"Therefore, in our view, it is not open to the appellant to contend that by marriage a person can become a member of that community. It is clear, based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, that a person cannot become a member of the community by choice. Latin Catholic community is treated as a class based on their backwardness and also on the ground that they are not adequately represented compared to that of forward groups including that of Syrian Christians. It will be defeating the very purpose of reservation if one is permitted to be included into a backward class."
(underline supplied) In the above judgment, the Full Bench referred to the judgment in K. G. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka [1985 Supp. SCC 714], wherein the Apex Court held that the adoption, marriage and conversion of faith of individual from one caste to another as permitted by the Law of Adoption or marriage have no relevance for the purpose of claiming the benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Reliance was also placed by the petitioner on the judgment in Sunitha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2018) 2 SCC 493] wherein it is held that, the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 : 11 : by marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste community. Though the Apex Court was referring to a case where a person belonging to other community on getting married to a member of the Scheduled Caste community claimed the benefit of Scheduled Caste category, the Court declined such a claim holding that the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by marriage. The Madras High Court in the case of S.Paul Raj v. The Tahsidar, Salem and Others(W.P.No.15193 of 2016) has held that when there is conversion from one religion to another, the caste of the person remains unchanged. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"9. This Court is of the considered opinion that conversion from one religion to another religion will not change the caste of a person which he belongs. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly belongs to Christian Adi-Dravidar community and by virtue of conversion to Christianity he was issued with the Backward Class certificate. However, by birth, the petitioner belongs to 'Adi-Dravidar' community and change of religion will not change the community. The classification of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Most Backward Classes, Backward Classes and Other castes will not change the caste."
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 : 12 : Dr.P.Muneeswari v. The Secretary to Government and others [W.P.(MD) No.1037 of 2016 and connected case], set aside the order of cancellation of community certificate of the petitioner therein, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, for the reason that the petitioner married a Christian and the petitioner's children have been recognised as members of the community to which the petitioner's husband belongs. The Bombay High Court in Rajendra Shrivastava v. The State of Maharashtra [MANU/MH/0036/2010] was considering a question as to whether a person who is born into a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, on marriage with a person belonging to a forward caste, would automatically transplant into the caste of her husband by virtue of her marriage and held that, a person who is born into a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, on marriage with a person belonging to a forward caste, is not automatically transplanted into the caste of her husband by virtue of her marriage and she cannot be said to belong to her husband's caste. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"12. When a woman born in a scheduled caste or a scheduled 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 : 13 : tribe marries to a person belonging to a forward caste, her caste by birth does not change by virtue of the marriage. A person born as a member of scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe has to suffer from disadvantages, disabilities and indignities only by virtue of belonging to the particular caste which he or she acquires involuntarily on birth. The suffering of such a person-by virtue of caste is not wiped out by a marriage with the person belonging to a forward caste. The label attached to a person born into a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe continues notwithstanding the marriage. No material has been placed before us by the applicant so as to point out that the caste of a person can be changed either by custom, usage, religious sanction or provision of law."
The High Court of Bombay in case of Ms.Priti v. The State of Maharashtra and another (W.P.No.3724 of 2022), followed the judgment of the Madras High Court in S.Paul Raj's case cited Supra, wherein it is held that a person's religion can be converted from one to another and can be done at any time, however the caste in which a particular person is born, cannot be changed. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"6. It is submitted that in the Indian Society caste of any person is attached by birth but his religion attached with said person to whom he follows viz. if any person follows worship and traditions of Jainism, he becomes Jain. If we follow worship and traditions of Hindu's God/Goddess, we become 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 : 14 : "Hindu", if we follow worship and traditions of Mohammad Paigamber then we become Mohammedan, if we follow worship and traditions of Guru Nanak, we become Sikh, if we follow worship and traditions of Gautam Buddha, we become Buddha. Article 25 of the Constitution of India provides for freedom of conscience and profess, practice and propagation of religion. Therefore, the citizen of India having every right to practice and propagate his religion. The religion can be converted from one to another and it can be done anytime. However, the caste in which a particular person born can not be changed."
This Court in Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C)No.21328 of 2021 considered whether a person belonging to Christian Latin Catholic on being married to a person belongs to Roman Catholic community will lose her OBC status belongs to the Christian Latin Catholic community and held that she will not lose the status of a person belonging to Christian Latin Catholic Community.
7. After hearing both sides and after taking into consideration the judgments of various Courts, including the Apex Court as referred to above, I am of the view that the change in the religion by marriage will not result in change of caste in which a particular person was born and that by conversion from one religion to another, the caste of the person remains unchanged.
2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 : 15 : In view of the above findings, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the above writ petition is allowed with a direction to the 4 th respondent to issue a community certificate to the petitioner showing that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste(SC) community, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/ 2025:KER:76441 W.P.(C). No.32814 of 2022 : 16 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32814/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULED CASTES) ORDER 1950 C.O. 19 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RAJARSHI MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, VADAVUKODU.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
DATED 31.01.2011 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE
DATED 03.06.2017, ISSUED BY THE TALUK
OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE
DATED 26.08.2019, ISSUED BY THE TALUK
OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE
APPLICATION DATED 10.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICE, IYKARANADU NORTH.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTE SUPPLEMENTARY SHORTLIST
FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT SALESMAN
(WAYANAD) IN KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.03.2022 IN WPC 21328/2021.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF PSC PROFILED
OF THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
exhibitR3(a) True copy of the OBC category list
exhibit R3(a) A true copy of the OBC category List