IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 19637 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, PADINJATTINKARA VEEDU, PULLAYIL P.O., KILIMANNOOR-695601. 2. R.SAJEEV KUMAR, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENTLY WORKING AT THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTS/ SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT(G) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTES/ SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT (G) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.19637 of 2010 (D) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim that they belong to Nayadi, a Scheduled Caste community. The 1st petitioner was issued Ext.P1 show cause notice dated 31/07/2000 based on Ext.P2 report, alleging that he does not belong to Nayadi community (SC) but belongs to Kodangi community. On receipt of Ext.P1 show cause notice, the petitioners submitted Exts.P3 & P4 explanations. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation requesting to issue copies of the documents furnished in Ext.P2 report, and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, some of the documents have been issued. Subsequently, by Ext.P6, 1st respondent has issued notice to the 2nd petitioner scheduling hearing on 25/06/2010. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation requesting the 1st respondent to issue notice to the persons mentioned therein, in order to enable the petitioners to adduce oral evidence. The petitioners complain that without considering Ext.P7, the 1st respondent was proceeding to conduct the hearing. It was at that stage, the writ petition has been filed. WP(C) No.19637/2010 -2- 2. It is now pointed out by both sides that the hearing, that was scheduled on 25/06/2010, was first adjourned to 20/08/2010, and then again adjourned to 17/09/2010. The only issue that needs to be clarified in this writ petition at this stage is regarding the justifiability of the request made by the 2nd petitioner in Ext.P7 representation. Admittedly, as per the Caste Certificates now issued to the petitioners, they belong to Nayadi, a Scheduled Caste community, which is under dispute and is sought to be decided. In that view of the matter, if the petitioners want to adduce evidence, be it oral or documentary, the petitioners should be afforded an opportunity, which precisely seems to be the request made by the 2nd petitioner in Ext.P7 representation, and I see no reason why such an opportunity shall be denied to him. 3. Having regard to the above, directing that the petitioners will be afforded reasonable opportunity to adduce oral evidence also in the enquiry that is now scheduled against them, this writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg