Kerala High Court
Ayya Vaikundaswamy Mission vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2020
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.250 OF 2011(S)
PETITIONERS:
1 AYYA VAIKUNDASWAMY MISSION
REG.NO.T 8/2010, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.
2 S.SUDHI, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.SREEDHARAN, RAGAM NIVAS, PUTHANKANAM,,
KATTACHALKUZHY.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-,
695 509 (JOINT SECRETARY, THE AYYA VAIKUNDASWAMY,
MISSION).
3 GEETHAKUMARI, AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.JAYAN.P., "HAINDAVAM", MULLUVILA, MULLUR.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.
4 G.R.SUNILKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.R.GOPI, SUNIL SADANAM, PAYARUM MOODU,,
MULLUR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.
5 VISAKH.S.A., AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.SURESH KUMAR, "KARTHIKA", THENGUNATTA VILA,,
KATTACHALKUZHY.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 509.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,,
PATTAM.P.O. 695 004.
WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 2
3 THE SOUTH INDIA UNITED CHURCH (S.I.U.C),
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, L M S COMPOUND,,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
4 THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA (C.S.I)
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, L M S COMPOUND,,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
5 THE KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASS
COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
R1 & R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SURIN IPE
GEORGE
R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
R3 & R4 BY ADV. R.T.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08-01-2020, THE COURT ON 08-01-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 3
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P.CHALY,J This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation with respect to the reservation granted to SIUC Nadar community seeking the following reliefs:
i) To call for the records leading to Exts.P5 and P6 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
ii) To declare that the denial of communal benefits to the members of the Hindu Nadar community is unconstitutional and violative of Artilces 14,16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Government to delete the South India United Church (SIUC) from the list of eligible communities entitled to reservation in the State of Kerala.
iv) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Government to restore back the full reservation benefits given to Hindu Nadars ignoring those who got converted to Christianity.
v) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; first petitioner is a society registered under the Society's Act having registration No.T 8/2010, formed with the object of betterment of Hinuds especially Nadars. The 2nd petitioner is the Secretary of the society and the 3rd , 4th and 5th petitioners are members of the society. According to the petitioners, the writ petition is filed seeking to protect the right to WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 4 reservation of the Hindu Nadars and for a declaration that, the use of the name Nadars even after conversion to another religion is illegal and not permissible. It is also contended that, after 1947 the South India United Church has ceased to exist.
3. Nadars as a class were inhabitants of the Southern Taluk of Travancore, a former princely State. They were educationally, socially and economically backward and therefore, were given reservation in the matter of recruitment to public service in the State of Travancore. As per Government Order dated 27.4.1925, Nadars were treated as a separate community/class for the purpose of reservation, which is extracted for easy reference as follows:
1. Hindu II.Muslim III.Christian
1.Brahmin(Malayala) 1.Protestant
2. - do- (others) 2. Roman Catholic
3. Nadar 3. Syrian
4. Ezhava (a) Jacobite
(b) Reformed
(c) Romo Syrian"
4. According to the petitioners, during that period, conversion were made from various castes/communities to Christianity and persons belonging to Nadar community also got converted to Christianity. Later a WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 5 separate sub division of 'depressed class' was introduced among the Christians to denote the converts, which also took in the Nadars who converted to Christianity. Thus the classification of communities earlier mentioned was re-scheduled as follows:
1. Hindu II.Muslim III.Christian
1.Brahmin(Malayala) 1.Protestant
2. - do- (others) 2. Roman Catholic
3. Nadar (a) Latin rite
(b) Syriac rite
3. Syrian
(a)Jacobite
(b) Marthoma
4. Church of England
5. "Depressed Class".
5. About the year 1935, the then Government of Travancore based on what is known as 'Dr.Nokes report' made a classification of communities and in that, the depressed class, which came to be used around 1925 was replaced by "South India United Church" (SIUC). On the basis of the same, classification of communities were written as follows:
1. Hindu II.Muslim III.Christian
1.Brahmin(Malayala) 1.Jacobite
2. Nayar 2. Syrian Catholic ...... ........WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 6
...... 4. Latin Catholic
5. Nadar 5. South India United Church
6. Later, the Travancore Public Service Recruitment Rules, 1111 M.E. was framed. In Schedule III of the Rules, Nadar was shown as item No.10. According to the petitioners, all through these years, Nadar was shown as Nadar itself under Hindu and therefore, treated as a separate class for all purposes including reservation among the Hindus themselves.
7. Therefore, according to the petitioners, after the formation of the Travancore Cochin State on 1.7.1949, the rules regulating the recruitment to the Public Services in the erstwhile Travancore State, i.e., Travancore Public Services Recruitment Rules, 1111M.E. were applied to it. Thus the Travancore - Cochin Government had recognised Hindu Nadars as a separate class for the purpose of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
8. It is also the case of the petitioners that, the Mission Society founded in the year 1795 in England formed the London Mission Churches, which later assumed the title "London Missionary Society". The missionaries sent out by this society founded many churches in South India. It was the churches founded out by the said society and other denominational churches formed a union in 1908 called "the South India United Church". It is also pointed out, even thereafter there were conversions and that included conversions from Hindu Nadars as well. WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 7 Therefore, it is submitted that, a portion of converts as well as those who united as above formed the SIUC. Thereafter, on 27.9.1947 the Church of South India (C.S.I) was constituted by the Union of Madras, Malabar, Jaffna, Kannada, Telugu and Travancore Church Councils of the South India United Church; the South India Province of the Methodist Church, comprising the Madras, Trichinapoly, Hyderabad and Mysore districts and the dioceses of Madras, Tirunevelly and Travancore and Cochin in the Church of India, Burma and Ceylon, to which in 1950 was added the North Tamil Church Council of the South India United Church, which is discernible from the constitution of the CSI Church and the extract of the Constitution is produced as Ext.P1.
9. The sum and substance of the contention put forth by the petitioners is that, Ext.P1 makes it clear that, after 1947, the SIUC ceased to exist as it merged in the Union forming the CSI. Thereafter in the year 1950, the North Tamil Church Council of the SIUC also merged with the CSI. So much so it is contended that, the factum of the merger of the SIUC in CSI is amply discernible from the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court and the erstwhile Travancore Cochin High Court in Rev.Thomas Williams v. John & others [1961 KLT 58(SC)], Hindu Nadars Corporation v. State of Kerala [2000(3)KLT 740] as well as in Jacob and others v. The Rev.Thomas Villiams [AIR 1954 TRA-CO.67(Vol.,41, WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 8 C.N.26)]. In Jacob (supra), the question that was answered was whether in merging with the CSI, the SIUC amended its constitution or dissolved itself. It was found that, the act of the SIUC in merging with the CSI was not an amendment of the constitution of the SIUC, but dissolving itself. It is also pointed out that, this fact was taken note of by Nettur Damodaran Commission appointed by the Government of Kerala, to submit a report on the backward communities in the State and at page 110 of the report, it is stated that, as a result of the formation of the CSI, the SIUC is said to have ceased to exist.
10. The State of Kerala was later formed on 1.11.1956 and then a large section of people belonging to communities like CSI and other backward classes, which were given reservation in the Travancore Cochin Rules, had gone out of the State when the southern taluks were transferred to Madras State. Pursuant to that, Government issued a proceedings dated 6.2.1957, whereby a list of backward communities for the Kerala State was prepared and accepted by the Government for the purposes of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and Annexure 1 was in the following manner:
Annexure I Backward classes in the Kerala State
1. Agasa
2. Ambalakaran WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 9
3. Anglo Indians .....
15. Ezhava
16. Ezhavathi .......
22. Hindu Nadar .....
49. Other Christians - Pulayas, Parayas, and other SC or BC members converted to Christianity.
.......
59. SIUC
11. Therefore, according to the petitioners, it can be seen that, at Entry 49, other Christians - Pulayas, Parayas and other Scheduled Castes or Backward Community members converted to Christianity were included. Therefore, the said Entry is exhaustive and all inclusive. But then, SIUC which according to the petitioners, is a non-existent and part of CSI found place at Entry 59, which is a clear overlapping and duplication as even assuming but not admitting for the sake of argument that, SIUC was existent at that time, Entry 49 will take in SIUC as well within its wide sweep.
12. The predominant contention advanced, therefore, is that, the CSI represents a forward community, which has its own educational institutions including Medical Colleges and other such institutions and establishments and being forward, they are not to be given the benefits of WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 10 reservation. But the SIUC which was existent in Travancore before the formation of CSI has not been removed from the reservation list due to high handed action and the influence asserted by the CSI. For the purposes of reservation etc. the SIUC certificate for the members of SIUC is given by the CSI itself, evident from Exts.P2 to P4 and the certificates shows that they are issued SIUC certificates recording that, the certificate holder belongs to SIUC Nadar Christian Community. Therefore, it is contended that, the fact that SIUC merged in the CSI is clear from the fact that, SIUC certificate is issued by none other than the CSI and above all, it is clear as to how and on what basis can the CSI issue SIUC certificates to its members.
13. According to the petitioners, issuance of such certificates is clearly impermissible and without any authority and that, when a person converts to another religion, he loses all the protection or privilege that he enjoyed before conversion. With the above backdrop, it is contended that, the determination of socially and economically backward communities can be done with due application of mind to the social, religious and the present position faced by the respective communities. Therefore, it is submitted, while Hindu Nadar represented by the petitioners are undoubtedly a segment of socially, economically and educationally backward people, those represented by the Church of South India or non- WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 11 existent SIUC cannot be considered to be socially, economically or educationally backward. However, the Government of Kerala with a view to placate and appease that section of Christian community attempting to include SIUC also as a socially, educationally backward class under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules so that the members of that church will be benefitted by the special concession offered to socially and educationally backward classes whereas they do not belong to that category at all. Therefore, it is contended that, any further reservation granted will be violative of Articles 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
14. On the other hand the 5th respondent i.e., the Kerala State Backward Commission has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. According to the 5th respondent, Ext.P5 order was issued by the State Government on the basis of the advice of the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes constituted under section 3 of the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, as amended, pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3361/2002 and W.P.(C) No.322/2001 filed by the SIUC and Civil Appeal No.3362/2002 filed by the State all against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 28.8.2000 in WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 12 O.P.No.7870/1988 (reported in 2000(3)KLT 740).
15. This Court as per the judgment reported in Hindu Nadar Corporation v. State of Kerala [2000(3)KLT 740] upheld the contentions of the Hindu Nadar Corporation, renamed as Akhilendia Nadar Association, and held that, clubbing of the Hindu Nadar community with SIUC Nadars is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and directed to retain Hindu Nadars in item 49 and treat SIUC Nadars separately. The Supreme Court after hearing the parties issued an interim direction on 24.2.2005, supplemented by another order on 2.5.2005, and the effect of these two orders was that Hindu Nadars and SIUC Nadars have to be treated separately. The Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes were directed to apportion the reservation quota allotted to both the sections together under rule 17 of Part II of KS & SSR and report the same to the State Government and the Government was directed to take a final decision within a time frame. The commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of the materials gathered, forwarded their recommendations in the form of a report on 29.7.2005 to the Government.
16. The CSI and others filed objections against the said report before the Government and the Government based on the report of the Cabinet Sub-Committee appointed for the said purpose, set aside the recommendations of the Commission and requested the Commission to WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 13 take a decision after conducting an indepth study in the matter. While so, the Hindu Nadar Association filed Writ Petition No.5459/2007 before the High Court for implementation of the recommendations of the Commission. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court with directions to the Authorities to furnish the details called for by the Commission expeditiously and the Commission was also directed to take a decision within a time frame.The Commission after receiving the details from the Authorities and after taking evidence both oral and documentary from the parties and after hearing them, forwarded its recommendations to the Government on 27.2.2009.
17. The Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeals and the writ petition filed by SIUC and the Government against the judgment in Hindu Nadar Corporation (supra). After receipt of the report Government also afforded personal hearing to the parties. The Hindu Nadar Association and the CSI representing the SIUC had accepted the recommendations of the Commission both before the Government and before the High Court in the pending writ petitions. It was accepting the recommendations, Ext.P5 order was passed by the Government and thereupon Ext.P6 notification dated 3.8.2010 is issued to give effect to the Government Order by way of amendment to the relevant provision of the KS&SSR. Therefore, according to the Commission, Ext.P5 order and WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 14 Ext.P6 notification are beneficial to the Hindu Nadars since they got separate reservation quota for appointment in the services under the State of Kerala.
18. Therefore, it is contended that, the petitioners have not made out any case so as to interfere with Exhibits P5 & P6 exercising the power of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So also it is submitted that Hindu Nadars, prior to the year 1978, were in the State OBC list and no separate reservation quota was available to them. The said community along with more than 60 other communities were treated as residuary OBC's with a reservation quota of 10 out of 40 in appointments in the services under the State. This was later reduced to 3 out of 40 as a result of allocation of reservation quota among the OBC's in the year 1982. Therefore, it is contended that even though petitioners seek for restoration of full reservation benefits given to Hindu Nadars, they have not stated as to what were the reservation benefits available to them prior to Exts.P5 and P6 or at any anterior point of time.
19. It is also submitted that, it is not stated as to how the reservation benefits available to them were reduced. Therefore, it is contended that, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners have no factual and legal foundation. It is also pointed out that, the SIUC was treated as OBC community by the Travancore and Travancore Cochin State and they WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 15 are included in the State OBC list from 1958 onwards. The SIUC joined the CSI in the year 1947. Therefore, the SIUC is given a separate status by the Travancore, Travancore Cochin and Kerala State for the purpose of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
20. So also, a petition for deleting SIUC from the State OBC list i.e., item 64 in List III of the Schedule to Part I KS&SSR, 1958 is pending consideration before the Backward class Commission, which is the authority to consider the question under section 9 r/w.Section 11 of the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act, and the Government is obliged to take a decision in the matter only on the recommendations of the Commission. That apart it is pointed out that, the members of the Nadar community apart from getting converted to SIUC have also got converted to about 29 other Christian religious denominations and those converts from Nadar community are not included in the State OBC list. Those religious denominations have approached the State Backward Classes Commission to include all Nadar converts in the State OBC list for reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and those petitions are still pending. They have also filed W.P.(C)No.107/2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for conferring OBC status to all Nadars irrespective of their religious denominations contending that conferment of OBC status to SIUC Nadars alone is arbitrary and discriminatory, which is WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 16 also pending consideration. Other contentions are also put forth by the 5 th respondent to canvass that the petitioners are not entitled to get any reliefs as is sought for in the writ petition.
21. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, Sri.K.Ramakumar assisted by Adv. Sri.Ramprasad Unni.T, learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Surin Ipe George , learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 & 4, Sri.R.T.Pradeep, and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
22. The paramount contention advanced by learned Senior counsel for petitioner is that, since the South India United Church (SIUC) has merged with the Church of South India (CSI), SIUC is no more existing in order to secure the benefits of reservation on account of backward class. It is also submitted that, the Church of South India is owning Medical Colleges, other institutions and properties, and is not having any sort of social inequalities or disabilities enabling the members of the said community as a class to secure the benefits of a backward class.
23. On the other hand learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, the Government have issued Ext.P5 order providing backward class reservation to SIUC on account of the recommendations made by the Backward Class Commission and it was consequentially that WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 17 Ext.P6 notification was issued by the Government. It is also pointed out that, petitioners have not challenged the report of the Backward Class Commission and the Government only accepted the report and issued consequential order and notification. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 & 4 has also addressed arguments in line with Ext.P5 order and Ext.P6 notification issued by the Government and has also submitted that, the SIUC is a class by itself and merely because the said class for the religious purposes joined with the Church of South India, that will not eradicate the social inequalities, uneven situation, inabilities and other drawbacks faced by the said class of people so as to deprecate the said class from the reservation provided for backward class and they are not adequately represented in the State services.
24. Learned Senior Counsel has invited our attention to judgment of the Madras High Court in Rev.A.H.Legg v. Jothiraj [1963 KHC 30] to canvass the proposition that since the SIUC has merged with the Church of South India, it has become one body or union and therefore, they cannot be treated as a separate class enabling them to secure any benefits of reservation on account of backward class. In our considered opinion, the jdugment in Rev.A.H.Legg (supra) was in respect of a civil dispute that arose by and between several parties including SIUC, in respect of rights over the properties etc. etc. That has nothing to do with the issue raised WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 18 by the petitioners in this writ petition.
25. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 & 4 submitted that, the issue with respect to reservation was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Hindu Nadar Corporation v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 740] and held as follows in paragraphs 32 & 33;
32. Depending upon the inequalities existed between Hindu Nadars and Nadars converted to Christianity and also economical and social backwardness of Hindu Nadars in public services, the Travancore Government, Travancore Cochin Government and the State Government treated them separately. Whether the conditions postulated for reservation are satisfied or not is a matter on which the State has to form its opinion and its opinion should be based on reasons. The State Government has to take into account all relevant aspects, and eschew from its mind all irrelevant facts, and make a proper assessment of competing claims and then evaluate their respective backwardness before it comes to a conclusion that a particular class has to be excluded or included along with other group. This must be done in objective evaluation of claims for reservation. The Apex Court in Periyakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1971) 1 SCC 38 held that such conclusions are open to judicial review, whenever they are challenged. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Shri. Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 S.C.C. 223 dealing with legislative or executive powers held in paragraph 52 as follows:
52. The true position, therefore, is that any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the Constitution or the governing Act or the general principles of the law of the land or it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it.
The same principle has been discussed by the Apex Court in Supreme Court Employees Association v. Union of India, ( 1989) 4 S.C.C. 187. The Apex court in Indra Sawhney's case (supra) dealing with adequacy of representation in the services under the State in paragraph 798 held as follows:
798. Not only should a class be a backward class for meriting reservations, it should also be inadequately represented in the services under the State. The language of Cl. (4) makes it clear that WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 19 the question whether a backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in the services under the State is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the State. This is evident from the fact that the said requirement is preceded by the words "in the opinion of the State". This opinion can be formed by the State on its own, i.e., on the basis of the material it has in its possession already or it may gather such material through a Commission/Committee, person or authority. All that is required is, there must be some material upon which the opinion is formed. Indeed, in this matter the court should show due deference to the opinion of the State, which in the present context means the executive. The executive is supposed to know the existing conditions in the society, drawn as it is from among the representatives of the people in Parliament/Legislature. It does not, however, mean that the opinion formed is beyond judicial scrutiny altogether. The scope and reach of judicial scrutiny in matters within subjective satisfaction of the executive are well and extensively stated in Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board, which need not be repeated here. Suffice it to mention that the said principles apply equally in the case of a constitutional provision like Art. 16(4) which expressly places the particular fact (inadequate representation) within the subjective judgment of the State/Executive.
Again the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney's case, in paragraph 842 held as follows:
842. It is enough to say on this question that there is no particular or special standard of judicial scrutiny in matters arising under Art. 16(4) or for that matter, under Art. 15(4). The extent and scope of judicial scrutiny depends upon the nature of the subject matter, the nature of the right affected, the character of the legal and constitutional provisions applicable, and so on. The acts and orders of the State made under Art. 16(4) do not enjoy any particular kind of immunity.
At the same time, we must say that court would normally extend due deference to the judgment and discretion of the executive - a co-equal wing in these matters. The political executive, drawn as it is from the people and represent as it does the majority will of the people, is presumed to know the conditions and the needs of the people and hence its judgment in matters within its judgment and discretion will be entitled to due weight. More than this, it is neither possible nor desirable to say. It is not necessary to answer the question as framed.
It is therefore evident from the above mentioned authoritative WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 20 pronouncements of the Apex Court that the acts and orders of the State Government made under Art. 16(4) do not enjoy any particular kind of immunity. Though normally court would give due deference to the judgment and discretion of the executive, there must be some materials upon which the executive has to form its discretion or judgment so as to unsettle a reservation which was in vogue for over half a century. In this case, those materials are totally lacking. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the principle enunciated by the Apex Court would be applicable. We are therefore of the view that the contention that the order and notifications impugned are not liable to challenge under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot be justified and the same is accordingly rejected.
33. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances we find it difficult to sustain Government order, Ext. R4(m), as well as Exts. P2 and P3 notifications, diluting the per centage of reservation for Hindu Nadars. We make it clear that Hindu Nadars should continue to be treated as a separate class for the purpose of Art. 16(4) of the Constitution. So also, Nadars converted to SIUC should form another category. Under such circumstances, Hindu Nadars would remain as a separate class by themselves in item No. 49 and Nadars converted to SIUC would come within item No. 64 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. We make it clear that the above declaration would operate only prospectively. All appointments hitherto made on the basis of impugned orders would not be disturbed. However, for the purpose of future appointments, Hindu Nadars will have to be treated as a separate class. It is so declared. Order, Ext. R4(m), and Exts. P2 and P3 notifications to the extent indicated above would stand quashed."
26. Therefore, according to the counsel, the Division Bench of this Court has found that Hindu Nadar and SIUC Nadars are classes to be treated separately and are entitled to get reservation as per item Nos.49 and 64 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. It is also submitted that, the Apex Court in the appeal preferred by SIUC as well as State, directed the Commission for Backward Classes to conduct a detailed study and then make appropriate recommendations to the Government. WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 21 Learned counsel has also handed over the advice tendered by the Commission to Government of Kerala in respect of percentage of reservation to be allotted to Hindu Nadars and SIUC Nadars. From the report, it is evident that, it was on the basis of the directions issued by the Apex Court that, advice was provided by the Backward Commission to the State Government. The directions issued by the Apex Court read thus:
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it seems that there has been some confusion in the proper understanding of the directions issued by the High Court as to the category in which the two groups, aforesaid, would fall. Tentatively, it is agreed subject to the learned counsel taking specific instructions from their respective clients that the two groups shall remain as a separate class. The matter as to the extent of reservation would be determined by the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes (for short, 'the Commission') under the provisions of the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 and orders passed on receipt of the Report from the Commission by the State Government. In the interregnum, the SIUC Nadars, as before, would continue to have reservation of one percent with Anglo-Indians, and Hindu Nadars would continue to be part, of residuary category, afore-noted, and would be part of Other Backward Classes entitled to ten percent reservation along with other castes. It is further agreed, tentatively, that if the parties finally agree on the aforesaid issues, consequential directions may also be made protecting the interests of those who may have been appointed after the pronouncement of the impugned judgement and order but, may be, not on the complete understanding of the directions given by the High Court. The question of the extent of reservation would be examined by the Commission as also the question whether the Hindu Nadars and SIUC Nadars deserve to be clubbed with any other class or not. It is, however, agreed that the Hindu Nadars and SIUC Nadars would remain as separate class and both these groups would not be clubbed together. This aspect would not be open to be examined by the Commission If the parties are able to obtain instructions, as aforesaid, a common memorandum shall be drafted and placed before the Court."
27. Based on the above two orders passed by the Apex Court, the WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 22 Commission, after affording opportunity to the parties including examination of parties and hearing them, decided the question of extent of reservation to the two groups. The Commission found that, of the two groups, SIUC Nadar is better placed both socially and educationally. Commission also found that, in the given circumstances, the quota allotted to the two communities in question as per the Government notification of 1982 has to be divided between them having regard to the relative social, educational and economic status of the aforesaid classes and the ratio sharing should have nexus. The Commission, then, referring to the observation of the Supreme Court in the order dated 24.2.2005 that the Commission has jurisdiction to consider as to whether the Hindu Nadar and SIUC Nadar deserves to be clubbed with any other class or not, took the stand that having regard to the relative status of these two groups, the sharing of the percentage allotted to them requires, the more advanced has to be clubbed with another community so that the two percent in posts other than last grade could be shared properly. Accordingly, relying on the evidence tendered by the President, SIUC, the Commission decided to club SIUC Nadar with SIUC other than Nadar and one percent out of the two percent of the posts other than last grade was allotted to the said group and the remaining one percent allotted to Hindu Nadars. Similarly out of the three percent in the last grade, 2% allotted to Hindu Nadar WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 23 and the remaining one percent to SIUC Nadar and SIUC other than Nadars together. It was accordingly the Commission advised the Government that, rule 17(2) of the Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules and List III in the schedule to the Rules has to be amended in accordance with the aforesaid sharing of quota. The report of the Commission is dated 27.7.2005.
28. However, the President of SIUC then filed W.P.(C)No.1882/2006 before this Court challenging the Commission's report and objection to the report was also filed before the Government. But in the meantime, the Supreme Court by judgement dated 28.3.2006 disposed of the Civil Appeals specified above observing that, the notification issued by the State of Kerala treating the Hindu Nadars and Christian Nadars as one group were valid in law.
29. From the advice, it is evident, the following observations were made by the Apex Court :
"It will bear repetition to state that even the Commission, in terms of its recommendations, now accepts that Hindu Nadars and Christian Nadars ought to be treated as different classes."
It was also accordingly held that, there does not exist any dispute among the parties as regards the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court. The court further observed that, if any party is aggrieved by any action which the State may take pursuant to or WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 24 in furtherance of the report of the Backward Class Commission or otherwise, he may seek his remedies before an appropriate forum.
30. Accordingly, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.1882/2006 directing the State Government to consider the report submitted by the Backward Commission as well as the objections filed and to take a decision in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioners and other affected parties, within a period of three months. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents 3 & 4 that, advice of the Backward Commission is not under challenge, and the Government wholly acted on the advice of the Commission in accordance with Section 9 of the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993. Sub-section (1) thereunder stipulates that, the Commission shall examine the requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as backward class in the lists and hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any backward class in such lists and tender such advice to the Government as it deems appropriate. Sub-section (2) states that the advice of the Commission shall ordinarily be binding upon the Government. So also it is relevant at this juncture to refer to Article 16(4)of the Constitution of India. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) thereunder stipulates that, there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 25 under the State. However, clause 4 stipulates that, nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision 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.
31. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the advice was given by the Backward Class Commission to the State Government in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the Civil Appeals specified above after due enquiry, oral and documentary evidence, and after hearing the parties to extend reservation to SIUC Nadar in the ratio prescribed in the report. So also even though SIUC has merged in Church of South India, the Commission found that it is a class forming by itself and therefore, is entitled to get reservation consequent to social inequalities and disabilities, and also inadequately represented in the State services. Merely because the said class merged with Church of South India for religious activities, it cannot be said, the social inequalities and other disabilities are removed disentitling them from the protection provided under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. So long as such disabilities and inequalities continued, then in accordance with Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, they are entitled to get adequate reservation in accordance with law in the services of the State. It is also WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 26 equally important to note, the advice of the Backward Commission is not under challenge in this writ petition, on the basis of only which the State have provided reservation to SIUC.
32. It is also equally clear from Section 9(2) that, ordinarily the Government shall accept the report of the Backward Commission. It was accordingly that the State Government has passed Ext.P5 order dated 21.11.2009 declining to grant reservation to the SIUC Nadars by amending item 49 of List III of the Schedule to Part I KS&SSR, 1958, thus retaining item 49 for Hindu Nadars, and introducing item 49(a) for Nadars included in the SIUC.
33. Consequentially Ext.P6 notification dated 2.8.2010 was issued amending the service rules and fixing the roster. The amended rule 17(2)
(a)(i) &(ii) of part II KS&SSR, 1958 read thus:
"2(a) the 40% reservation allowed to other Backward classes shall be distributed among the different groups of Backward Classes in the following proportion:-
(i) For direct recruitment to posts included in the Kerala Last Grade Service.
Out of every 40 appointments, 11 shall be given to Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas, 10 to Muslims, 4 to Latin Catholics and Anglo Indians, 3 to Nadars (Hindu Nadars and Nadars included in S.I.U.C.), 2 to Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity, 2 to Viswakarmas, 2 to Dheevaras and 6 to Other Backward Classes put together.
(ii) For direct recruitment to posts other than those included in the Kerala Last Grade Service.
WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 27Out of every 40 appointments, 14 shall be given to Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas, 12 to Muslims, 4 to Latin Catholics and Anglo Indians, 2 to Nadars (Hindu Nadars and Nadars included in S.I.U.C.) 1 to Scheduled Caste Converts to Christianity, 3 to Viswakarmas, 1 to Dheevaras and 3 to Other Backward Classes put together." Therefore, in our considered opinion, the challenge made by the petitioners to Exts.P5 and P6 Government Orders without challenging the advice of the Backward Class Commission statutorily given cannot be sustained under law because ordinarily the Government have to accept the advice of the Commission as per the provisions of Act, 1993.
34. Even though learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised a contention that since there is no counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 & 4 with respect to the pleadings put forth by the petitioners that since SIUC merged with the Church of South India, no claim can be made by SIUC for reservation, the facts pointed out above would make it clear that, even without raising any contentions by the said respondents, the actual facts are discernible from the advice given by the Commission for Backward Classes of the State. To top up Article 16(4) of the Constitution provides for reservation of appointments or posts in regard to any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 28 is not adequately represented in the services of the State. Which thus means the power so conferred on the State is to be exercised and employed effectively to protect the interest of any backward class after ensuring an objective assessment in accordance with law. It is worthwhile to refer to some of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in this regard. In General Manager, Southern Railway and another v. Rangachari [AIR 1962 Supreme Court 36], it is held as follows in paragraph 26:
26. The condition precedent for the exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 16 (4) is that the State ought to be satisfied that any backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in its services.
This condition precedent may refer either to the numerical inadequacy of representation in the services or even to the qualitative inadequacy of representation. The advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes requires not only that they should have adequate representation in the lowest rung of services but that they should aspire to secure adequate representation in selection posts in the services as well. In the context the expression 'adequately represented' imports considerations of "size" as well as "values,"
numbers as well as the nature of appointments held and so it involves not merely the numerical test but also the qualitative one. It is thus by the operation of the numerical and a qualitative test that the adequacy or otherwise of the representation of backward classes in any service has to be judged; and if that be so, it would not be reasonable to hold that the inadequacy of representation can and must be cured only by reserving a proportionately higher percentage of appointments at the initial stage. In a given case the State may well take the view that a WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 29 certain percentage of selection posts should also be reserved, for reservation of such posts may make the representation of backward classes in the services adequate, the adequacy of such representation being considered qualitatively. If it is conceded that "posts" in the context refer to posts in the services and that selection posts in the services and that selection posts may be reserved but should be filled only in the manner suggested by the respondent then we see no reason for holding that the reservation of selection posts cannot be implemented by promoting suitable members of backward class of citizens to such posts as the circulars intend to do.
35.In T.Devadasan v. Union of India and another [Air 1964 Supreme Court 179], it is held as follows in paragraph 12:
12. It is an accepted fact that members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes are by and large backward in comparison with other communities in the country. This is the result of historical causes with which it is not necessary for us to deal here. The fact, however, remains that they are backward and the purpose of Art. 16 (4) is to ensure that such people, because of their backwardness should not be unduly handicapped in the matter of securing employment in the various services of the State. This provision, therefore, contemplates reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes who are not adequately represented in the services under the State. Where, therefore, the State makes a rule providing fo the reservation of appointments and posts for such backward classes it cannot be said to have violated Art. 14, merely because members of the more advanced classes will not be considered for appointment to these posts even though they may be equally or even more meritorious than the members of the backward classes, or merely because such reservation is not made in every kind of service under the State.
Where the object of a rule is to make reasonable allowance for the backwardness of members of a class by reserving certain proportion of appointments for them in the public services of the State what the State would in fact be doing would be to provide the members of backward classes with an opportunity equal to that of the members of the more advanced classes in the matter of appointments to public services. If the reservation is so excessive that it practically denies a reasonable opportunity for employemnt to members of other communities the position may well be WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 30 different and it would be open then for a member of a more advanced class to complain that he has been denied equality by the State.
36. In State of Kerala v. N.M.Thomas [(1976) 2 SCC 310], this question was considered in a different angle and held thus in paragraph 44:
44. Our Constitution aims at equality of status and opportunity for all citizens including those who are socially, economically and educationally backward. The claims of members of Backward Classes require adequate representation in legislative and executive bodies. If members of Scheduled Castes and tribes, who are said by this Court to be Backward Classes, can maintain minimum necessary requirement of administrative efficiency, not only representation but also preference may be given to them to enforce equality and to eliminate inequality. Article 15(4) and 16(4) bring out the position of Backward Classes to merit equality. Special provisions are made for the advancement of Backward Classes and reservations of appointments and posts for them to secure adequate representation. These provisions will bring out the content of equality guaranteed by Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(1). The basic concept equality is equality of opportunity for appointment. Preferential treatment for members of Backward Classes with due regard to administrative efficiency alone can mean equality of opportunity for all citizens. Equality under Article 16 could not have a different content from equality under Article 14. Equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of inequality. Equality of opportunity admits discrimination with reason and prohibits discrimination without reason. Discrimination with reasons means rational classification for differential treatment having nexus to the constitutionally permissible object. Preferential representation for the Backward Classes in WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 31 services with due regard to administrative efficiency is permissible object and Backward Classes are a rational classification recognized by our Constitution. Therefore, differential treatment in standards of selection are within the concept of equality.
37. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sang (Railway) v. Union of India and others [(1981)1 SCC 246], a different concept and dimension is rendered to Article 16(4). Paragraph 125 of the judgment reads thus:
125. Let us now take a look at Article 16(1) and Article 16(4). Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
To the class of citizens who are economically and socially backward this guarantee will be no more than mere wishful thinking, and mere "vanity ... wind and confusion", if it is not translated into reality by necessary State action to protect and nurture such class of citizens so as to enable them to shake off the heart-crushing burden of a thousand years' deprivation from their shoulders and to claim a fair proportion of participation in the administration. Reservation of posts and all other measures designed to promote the participation of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Public Services at all levels are in our opinion necessary consequences flowing from the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 16(1). This very idea is emphasised further by Article 16(4). Article 16(4) is not in the nature of an exception to Article 16(1). It is a facet of Article 16(1) which fosters and furthers the idea of equality of opportunity with special reference to an underprivileged and deprived class of citizens to whom egalite de droit (formal or legal equality) is not egalite de fait (practical or factual equality). It is illustrative of what the State must do to wipe out the distinction between egalite de droit and egalite de fait. It recognises that the right to equality of opportunity includes the right of the underprivileged to conditions comparable to or compensatory of those enjoyed by the privileged. Equality of opportunity must be such as to yield "Equality of Results" and not that which simply enables people, socially and economically better placed, to win against the less fortunate, even when the competition is itself otherwise equitable. John Rawls in A Theory Of Justice demands the priority of equality in a distributive sense and the setting up of the social system "so that no one gains or loses from his arbitrary place in the distribution of natural assets or his own initial position in society without giving or receiving WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 32 compensatory advantages in return". His basic principle of social justice is: "All social primary goods -- liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect -- are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all these goods is to the advantage of the least favoured." One of the essential elements of his conception of social justice is what he calls the principle of redress:
"This is the principle that undeserved inequalities call for redress; and since inequalities of birth and natural endowment are undeserved, these inequalities are somehow to be compensated for." Society must, therefore, treat more favourably those with fewer native assets and those born into less favourable social positions. If the statement that "Equality of Opportunity must yield Equality of Results" and if the fulfilment of Article 16(1) in Article 16(4) ever needed a philosophical foundation it is furnished by Rawls' theory of justice and the redress Principle.
38. Most importantly in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], the issue was discussed elaborately by a nine member constitution bench and it was on the basis of the directions in the judgment that the Act, 1993 was constituted. Paragraphs 794 to 797 & 799 are relevant, read thus:
794. In Balaji it was held (SCR p. 458) "that the Backward Classes for whose improvement special provision is contemplated by Article 15(4) are in the matter of their backwardness comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes". (emphasis supplied) The correctness of this observation is questioned by the counsel for the respondents.
Reliance is placed upon the observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J in Vasanth Kumar (at page 406 : SCC p. 747-48, para 51) where, dealing with the above observations in Balaji, the learned Judge said: (SCC pp. 747-48, para 51) "We do not think that these observations were meant to lay down any proposition that the Socially Backward Classes were those classes of people, whose conditions of life were very nearly the same as those of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes .... There is no point in attempting to determine the social backwardness of other classes by applying the test of nearness to the conditions of existence of the Scheduled Castes. Such a test would practically nullify the provision for reservation for socially and educationally Backward Classes other WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 33 than Scheduled Castes and Tribes."
795. We see no reason to qualify or restrict the meaning of the expression "backward class of citizens" by saying that it means those other backward classes who are situated similarly to Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes. As pointed out in para 786, the relevant language employed in both the clauses is different. Article 16(4) does not expressly refer to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes; if so, there is no reason why we should treat their backwardness as the standard backwardness for all those claiming its protection. As a matter of fact, neither the several castes/groups/tribes within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are similarly situated nor are the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes similarly situated. If any group or class is situated similarly to the Scheduled Castes, they may have a case for inclusion in that class but there seems to be no basis either in fact or in principle for holding that other classes/groups must be situated similarly to them for qualifying as backward classes. There is no warrant to import any such a priori notions into the concept of Other Backward Classes. At the same time, we think it appropriate to clarify that backwardness, being a relative term, must in the context be judged by the general level of advancement of the entire population of the country or the State, as the case may be. More than this, it is difficult to say. How difficult is the process of ascertainment of backwardness would be known if one peruses Chapters III and XI of Volume I of the Mandal Commission Report along with Appendixes XII and XXI in Volume II. It must be left to the Commission/Authority appointed to identify the backward classes to evolve a proper and relevant criteria and test the several groups, castes, classes and sections of people against that criteria. If, in any case, a particular caste or class is wrongly designated or not designated as a backward class, it can always be questioned before a court of law as well. We may add that relevancy of the criteria evolved by Mandal Commission (Chapter XI) has not been questioned by any of the counsel before us. Actual identification is a different matter, which we shall deal with elsewhere.
796.-797. We may now summarise our discussion under Question No.
3. (a) 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 purposes of Article 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 Article 16(4). (b) Neither the constitution nor the law prescribe the procedure or method of identification of backward classes. Nor is it possible or advisable for the court to lay down any such procedure or method. It must be left to the authority appointed to identify. It can adopt such method/procedure as it thinks convenient and so long as its survey covers the entire populace, WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 34 no objection can be taken to it. Identification of the backward classes can certainly be done with reference to castes among, and along with, other groups, classes and sections of people. One can start the process with the castes, wherever they are found, apply the criteria (evolved for determining backwardness) and find out whether it satisfies the criteria. If it does -- what emerges is a "backward class of citizens" within the meaning of and for the purposes of Article 16(4). Similar process can be adopted in the case of other occupational groups, communities and classes, so as to cover the entire populace. The central idea and overall objective should be to consider all available groups, sections and classes in society. Since caste represents an existing, identifiable social group/class encompassing an overwhelming majority of the country's population, one can well begin with it and then go to other groups, sections and classes.
(c) It is not necessary for a class to be designated as a backward class that it is situated similarly to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. ( d) 'Creamy layer' can be, and must be, excluded. ( e) It is not correct to say that the backward class contemplated by Article 16(4) is limited to the socially and educationally backward classes referred to in Article 15(4) and Article 340. It is much wider. The test or requirement of social and educational backwardness cannot be applied to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who indubitably fall within the expression "backward class of citizens". The accent in Article 16(4) appears to be on social backwardness. Of course, social, educational and economic backwardness are closely intertwined in the Indian context. The classes contemplated by Article 16(4) may be wider than those contemplated by Article 15(4).
(f) Adequacy of Representation in the Services under the State Question 4:
(a) Whether backward classes can be identified only and exclusively with reference to the economic criterion?
799. It follows from the discussion under Question No. 3 that a backward class cannot be determined only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion. It may be a consideration or basis along with and in addition to social backwardness, but it can never be the sole criterion. This is the view uniformly taken by this Court and we respectfully agree with the same.
Thus it can be seen that the advice given by the Backward class Commission to the Government for including SIUC Nadar for reservation has its own significance and relevance and normally and ordinarily the advice of the Commission is to be accepted in toto, WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 35 unless for any unprecedented and malafide circumstances.
39. Moreover, the 5th respondent in its counter affidavit has stated that, on the basis of the petition filed by Hindu Samvarana Samrakshana Samithi for exclusion of SIUC from the State OBC list, it is being enquired into by the Commission. It is pointed out that, the Commission is entertaining, examining and recommending upon the requests for inclusion and complaints of over-inclusion and under-inclusion in the list of OBCs as directed by the Apex Court in the judgment in Indira Sawhney and others v. Union of India & others [(1992)Supp. 3 SCC 217]. So also it is submitted that, the petition filed by Hindu Samvarana Samrakshana Samithi regarding removal of SIUC Nadars from the OBC reservation list is being studied by the Commission, and Commission will make appropriate recommendation on the above petition in accordance with Act, 1993. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the subject issue raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is under the consideration of Backward Commission, which is the authority to enquire into said aspects in accordance with Section 9 of Act, 1993. Therefore, we do not think, there is any force in the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for petitioners in that regard, at this point of time.
40. Moreover, the findings were rendered by the Commission in its advice based on factual and legal circumstances. We do not think that the WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 36 petitioners have produced any established piece of evidence before this court to enter into a finding that, the advice made by the Commission recommending reservation for SIUC Nadar is in any manner arbitrary or illegal, justifying interference of this court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so in a public interest litigation.
Resultantly, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications would stand closed. The advice made by the Backward Class Commission produced by counsel for respondents 4&5 is made part of the record.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
WP(C).No.250 OF 2011 37
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA
(CHAPTER 1).
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SIUC CERTIFICATE DATED
22/07/2006 ISSUED TO ONE JINEY T.S.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SIUC CERTIFICATE DATED
09/08/2006 ISSUED TO ONE ALEX SAMUEL.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SIUC CERTIFICATE DATED
01/09/2006 ISSUED TO ONE ASHA A.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO GO(MS)
104/2009/SCSTDD DATED 21/11/2009.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN
THE KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY DATED
03/08/2010.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.585/B3/2016 DATED
27/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.