IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10778 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.K.OMANA, W/O.SURENDRANATH, C3-3, P & T QUARTERS, AGED 54 YEARS, MUTTAMBALAM.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686004. 2. P.N.GOWRI, W/O.K.V.PADMANABHAN, AGED 60YEARS, KONATHETTU HOUSE, NEENDOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686601. 3. M.K.RAJAMMA, W/O.P.K.VASU, 64 YEARS,PAYKATTUSSERIL HOUSE, KUMARAKAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR SRI.C.K.RAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WELFARE, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REMANI T.B. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) 298. P2 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) 11/77/DD. P3 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GO(MS) 11/2005/SC/ST/DD ISSUED BY R1. P4 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GO(MS) 25/2005/SC/ST/DD ISSUED BY R1. P5 COPY OF THE GO(MS) 109/08/SC/ST/DD ISSUED BY R1. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 10778 of 2009 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 17 th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners, three in number, belong to the Hindu Mala Arayan community which is a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Kerala. They have married persons belonging to communities other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In this writ petition, they challenge Ext.P5 Government Order dated 20-11- 2008, wherein the government have directed that authorities issuing caste certificates to children born to intercaste married couple, one of whom is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, should ensure that the claimant has suffered disabilities socially, economically and educationally. 2. Ext.P5 Government Order recites that it is one issued in implementation of the directions issued by a Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.2483 of 2005 and connected cases, which were disposed of by judgment delivered on 10-08-2005. The decision of the Full Bench in the aforesaid case is Indira Vs. State of Kerala [2005 (4) KLT 119(FB)]. Paragraph 20 of the said WPC.10778/2009 : 2 : judgment reads as follows:- “ 20. Children born of intercaste marriage of which either of the parents belongs to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe should have a caste status either that of the mother or that of the father. Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4A) are intended to remove all handicaps and disadvantages suffered by members of scheduled caste/scheduled tribes. Suppose a neglected or deserted SC/ST woman brings up her child, with the same handicaps, suffering, disadvantages, attached to that caste/tribe, whose father belong to non SC/ST, it is too harsh to deny the benefit to that child on the mere reason that the child's father belongs to non scheduled caste/schedule tribe. Person who claims the status of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe of his/her father or mother has to establish that on his/her birth, he/she is subjected to same social disabilities and also following the same customs and traditions and the community has accepted that person to its fold.” 3. The government have in Ext.P5 only incorporated the WPC.10778/2009 : 3 : declaration of law made by this Court. The petitioners cannot, therefore, challenge the stipulation in Ext.P5 Government Order that the child born to intercaste married couple, one of whom is a member of a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, should prove that he has suffered disabilities socially, economically and educationally in order to claim the status of a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. The challenge to Ext.P5 is, therefore, without any merit. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) aks