IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 2470 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.229/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S)/5TH RESPONDENT: --------------- PUSHAPALATHA, PUTHANPARAMPIL, THIRUVARPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS, 1, 2 AND 4 AND APPLICANT: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POST, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KERALA CIRCLE, COCHIN. 3. INSPECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, KOTTAYAM WEST SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 4. SEENAMOL.K.R., W/O.JINNISHH, KATTADICHIRA HOUSE, THIRUVARPPU, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1-3 SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the O.A. before the C.A.T. Ext.P2: True copy of the reply statement by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3: True copy of the reply statement by the 5th respondent /petitioner. Ext.P4: True copy of the order in O.A. 229 of 2008 before the Hon'ble C.A.T. dated 24.11.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 2470 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner who was the 5th respondent in O.A. No.229 of 2008 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench has filed this Writ Petition. She challenges the final order dated 24.11.2008 passed in the said Original Application, which was filed by the 4th respondent herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The third respondent herein invited applications for appointment to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer for Thiruvarppu EDSO, Kottayam. The said post was exclusively reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The writ petitioner and the 4th respondent were candidates. Since the 4th respondent's application did not contain the caste certificate showing that she belonged to the Scheduled Caste, her application was not considered. The writ petitioner was selected and appointed. Challenging the said selection and appointment and also the non-consideration of her W.P.(C)NO.2470/2009 2 application, the 4th respondent filed the above Original Application. Though the official respondents as well as the writ petitioner resisted the Original Application by filing reply statements, the Tribunal allowed the same by Ext.P4 order. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “In view of the above, the OA is allowed. It is declared that notwithstanding the non- furnishing of separate caste certificate, reflection of the caste name in the SSLC book does fulfill the requirement. The case of the applicant be considered and in case by virtue of her high marks compared to other aspirants, if she is found suitable, subject to fulfilling other requisite conditions, she may be offered the appointment. If for any other reason the applicant is not found suitable, she may be informed through a speaking order and in that event, needles to mention that respondent No.5 would be advised to join duties.” 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, since the 4th respondent did not produce copy of her caste certificate along with the application, her application was rightly rejected. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent, on the other hand, submitted that she had produced her S.S.L.C. Book to prove her caste and, therefore, non consideration of her claim for appointment was not justified. W.P.(C)NO.2470/2009 3 4. Annexure A2 is the notification issued by the third respondent. Condition No.6 of Annexure A2 stipulates that application should be submitted in the prescribed form appended to the notification, along with attested copies of certificates showing age, caste and educational qualifications. It is common case that the 4th respondent did not submit any caste certificate to prove her caste. She enclosed her S.S.L.C. Book in which there is an entry regarding her caste. In view of the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996(Act 11 of 1996), it is the settled position in law that the competent authority to give caste certificate is the Tahsildar concerned. It is also the settled position in law that the entry in the S.S.L.C. Book cannot be taken as evidence of caste status of the incumbent. It only shows the claim of the parents of the student regarding his caste status. So, the finding of the Tribunal that the S.S.L.C. Book will prove the caste status of the 4th respondent is plainly untenable. But, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that in the case of Employment Exchange hands, no caste certificates were produced along with the application and that the candidates who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange were given a chance to produce the relevant documents during the process of verification. But, in their case, at the W.P.(C)NO.2470/2009 4 time of registration, they have to produce materials before the Employment Officer regarding their caste and the said officer on being prima facie satisfied that the candidates belonged to Scheduled Caste community, sponsors them when their turn arises. 5. In the case of candidates, who applied pursuant to the above notification, they are bound to produce the caste certificate issued by the competent authority to prove their caste status. So, we find nothing wrong with the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3. We also find that the view taken by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal is set aside and O.A. No.229 of 2008 is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C)NO.2470/2009 5 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C) NO.2470/2009 JUDGMENT 1st June, 2009 W.P.(C)NO.2470/2009 6