Kerala High Court
Shyamili Sasidharan vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KER 217
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.29941 OF 2019(P)
PETITIONER:
SHYAMILI SASIDHARAN,
AGED 25 YEARS,
D/O. P.N. SASIDHARAN,
SARIKA NIVAS,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 534.
BY ADVS.
SRI.VISHAK.K.JOHNSON
SRI.S.S.ARAVIND
SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE
DEVELOPMENT (G) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524
3 THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF
COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE,
SC/ST DEVELOPMENT (G) DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.PRAKASH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.29941/2019
:2 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2021 The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by Exts.P5, P7 and P8 orders whereby the claim of the petitioner as to the status of Scheduled Caste Kuravan Community stands rejected.
2. The petitioner would contend that she belongs to Scheduled Caste (Kuravan) Community. The Tahsildar, Cherthala has issued caste certificate to the petitioner showing the petitioner as Hindu Kuravan. When the petitioner applied for admission to professional degree course in 2013, the Screening Committee constituted for assessing the caste of the candidates, refused to recognise the petitioner as belonging to Kuravan community. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.31632/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Scrutiny Committee to pass orders on the caste status of the petitioner. WP(C) No.29941/2019 :3 :
3. The petitioner contends that the Vigilance Officer of the Scrutiny Committee thereafter conducted enquiry and made certain adverse remarks against the petitioner. On 06.02.2019, the Vigilance Officer of the KIRTADS submitted Ext.P5 report to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. In the said report, the Vigilance Officer concluded that the petitioner belongs to Chunnambu Velan community and the claim of the petitioner for Hindu Scheduled Caste (Kuravan) status cannot be accepted.
4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 objection in response to show-cause notice issued by the Scrutiny Committee, producing relevant documents marked as A to R. In Ext.P6, the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner's father and close family circles belong to Kuravan community and requested that the report of the KIRTADS may be rejected.
5. The Scrutiny Committee, however, passed Ext.P7 order whereby the Committee found that the findings of the Vigilance Officer are just and proper. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the Scheduled Caste (Kuravan) claim of the petitioner WP(C) No.29941/2019 :4 : and decided to cancel the community certificates issued to the petitioner by competent authorities. Ext.P7 was forwarded to the 1st respondent.
6. The 1st respondent accepted the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and held that the petitioner and her family members do not belong to Scheduled Caste (Kuravan) community but to Chunnambu Velan community and the petitioner and her family members are not entitled for any of the benefits exclusively reserved for the members of Scheduled Caste.
7. The petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P7 and P8 on various grounds. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and her family members belong to Scheduled Caste (Kuravan) community. The report of the Vigilance Officer is incorrect. The anthropological report submitted by the Director of Vigilance was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to raise objections against Ext.P5 report.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that WP(C) No.29941/2019 :5 : the genealogical and documentary evidence relied on by the Vigilance Officer would indicate that the petitioner actually belongs to Kuravan community. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the Scrutiny Committee miserably failed to consider a number of documents produced by the petitioner. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a caste certificate issued to an individual cannot be cancelled without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In such circumstances, Exts.P5, P7 and P8 are liable to be set aside permitting the petitioner to establish her caste status before the authorities.
9. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader representing the respondents submitted that the Scrutiny Committee considered the grievance of the petitioner in its sitting held on 28.05.2019. The petitioner attended the hearing. The petitioner argued her case and stated that the petitioner and her relatives, both maternal and paternal side, belong to Scheduled Caste WP(C) No.29941/2019 :6 : (Kuravan) community. This Court had directed the Scrutiny Committee to consider the contentions of the petitioner.
10. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that at the time of enquiry by the Vigilance Officer, the petitioner's father had given a statement in which he stated that his father was traditionally engaged in lime work, traditional medicinal practices and also led and engaged in some religious ceremonies, viz. Pallipana and Morothu. These religious rituals are performed by Chunnambu Velan community, to ward off evil spirits. Those are not traditions of Kuravan community.
11. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the mother of the petitioner and her ancestors belong to Velan community. The field enquiry conducted by the respondents and the ethnographic documents establish that the petitioner's parents belong to the same endogamous group, viz. Chunnambu Velan community. It was in the circumstances that the Scrutiny Committee came to its conclusion. The conclusion of the Scrutiny Committee approved by the 1 st WP(C) No.29941/2019 :7 : respondent is not liable to be interfered with, contended the learned Government Pleader.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
13. It has come out in the enquiry made by the Scrutiny Committee that the grandfather of the petitioner belonged to Chunnambu Velan community. The similarity of livelihood activities revealed that the petitioner's grandfather followed the tradition of Chunnambu Velan community. The tradition of Kuravan community is different. The anthropological evidence clearly established that the petitioner and her forefathers belong to Chunnambu Velan community. The petitioner's mother's grandfather admittedly belongs to Velan community. He married to late Lakshmi who also belonged to Velan community. Their son Velayudhan married one Ammini who also belonged to Velan community. Out of the marital union between them, six children were born including the mother of the petitioner. Out of them, Chellamma married one WP(C) No.29941/2019 :8 : Madhavan who belonged to Velan community. Karunakaran married to Ramla alias Ammini who also belonged to Velan community. Savithri married to Chandran who belonged to Hindu Pulaya community. The mother of the petitioner completed her primary education and secondary education where her caste status was entered as Hindu Velan.
14. The sibling of the petitioner Sharika Sasidharan married to Arun of Thiruvananthapuram who belonged to Hindu Pulaya community. The Scrutiny Committee noted that Chunnambu Velan community and Kuravan community are different historically and culturally. Livelihood practices, social structure, belief and rituals are also different. The Scrutiny Committee elaborately considered the difference between Chunnambu Velan and Kuravan community to arrive at its conclusions.
15. It is to be noted that the enquiry conducted by the Scrutiny Committee proved that the grandfathers of the petitioner followed the customs and traditions of Chunnambu Velan community. Most of their relatives also belonged to WP(C) No.29941/2019 :9 : Velan community. It is under such circumstances that the Scrutiny Committee has come to a factual finding as to the caste status of the petitioner. This Court has no reason to held that the factual findings of the Scrutiny Committee are wrong.
16. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing to represent her caste and establish her caste status. A perusal of the pleadings would show that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and submitted Ext.P6 to the Scrutiny Committee, which contained detailed objections to the proposal of the Scrutiny Committee to treat her as belonging to Chunnambu Velan community. A number of documents were referred to. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents would show that the petitioner was present when a hearing was taken place on 28.05.2019. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner's objections were considered by the Scrutiny Committee and the petitioner was heard in person. A perusal of Ext.P7 would also indicate that the Scrutiny Committee had considered the WP(C) No.29941/2019 : 10 : objections of the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner participated in the proceedings and filed objections, which were considered by the Scrutiny Committee.
In the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/12.02.2021 WP(C) No.29941/2019 : 11 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER WHERE THE PETITIONER'S PATERNAL UNCLE SURENDRAN P.N, STUDIED FROM 26.5.1958 TO 15.5.1963.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR OF CHERTHALA TALUK STATING THAT THE PETITIONER'S FATHER BELONGS TO HINDU-KURAVA COMMUNITY.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.
31632/2017 DATED 12.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO. 16187/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 15.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED FROM
THE VIGILANCE OFFICER TO THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 6.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO HER DATED 26.3.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DATED 9.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26.9.2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF SSLC REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER.
SR