Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, assailed the writ Court's decision on the ground that "Valsamma Paul"2 is no longer a good law. This argument has been raised with reference to the observations made in "Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika"5.

20. In "Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika"5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is wrong and incorrect to read "Valsamma Paul"2, "Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary"10 and "Anjan Kumar v. Union of India"11 cases as laying down the rule that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal, the child must always be deemed to take his/her caste from the father regardless of the attending facts and circumstances of each case.

24. "Valsamma Paul"2 was followed in "State of Tripura v. Namita Majumdar [Barman]"12 and "Sandhya Thakur v. Vimla Devi Kushwah"13 and it seems to me that as regards grant or denial of the benefit of reservation in the public employment "Valsamma Paul"2 has been approved in the subsequent judgments including "Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar"14, "Meera Kanwaria v. Sunita"15, "Anjan Kumar"11 and "Charu Khurana v. Union of India"16. In my opinion, the doubt expressed in "Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika"5 was entirely on a different issue and, moreover, "Valsamma Paul"2 has not been overruled expressly or impliedly in any subsequent judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

29. In "Namita Majumdar"12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"6...........The submission is that a person by reason of her/his marriage to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste is not entitled to claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University. The appellant, in that case, was, by birth, a Syrian Catholic, a forward class in the State of Kerala. She had married a person who was Latin Catholic, a Backward Class in the said State. It was held that the said appellant could not claim the benefits under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. Dr N.M. Ghatate, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the said decision in Valsamma Paul case needs reconsideration and has pointed out that in the context of election law this Court has recognised that the benefit of reservation for Scheduled Castes can be availed of by a person on the basis of marriage. The said decisions have been taken note of and distinguished in the decision in Valsamma Paul case. We do not find any reason to take a view different from that taken in Valsamma Paul case. It must, therefore, be held that the respondent cannot be declared to be entitled to the benefits of a Scheduled Caste on the basis of her marriage to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste."

52. The learned Single Judge, while deciding the issues, has considered the late age of the adoption of the appellant, and relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University"

reported in (1996) 3 SCC 545 and "A.S. Sailaja Vs. Principal, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool & Ors." reported in 1986 AIR (AP) 209, which had come up before a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

53. It is useful to quote the precise paragraphs relied upon in aforesaid two judgments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Valsamma Paul" (supra) in paragraph No.34 held as under: