In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 30.09.2008 Coram: The Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Writ Petition No.41041 of 2002 and WPMP.No.861 of 2008 S.Brigida ..Petitioner ..vs.. 1. District Vigilance Committee rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin District, Collectorate, Tuticorin. 2. The Chairman, BC and MBC and Minority Welfare Dept., State Review Committee & Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3. Director of Medical Education, Chennai. 4. Govt.Medical College, Tuticorin. 5. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, rep.by its Registrar, Chennai-32. ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in G.O(2D) No.20 Backward Class & Most Backward Class and Minority Welfare (BWMW) Department dated 16.10.2002 confirming the order of the first respondent in its Proceedings E5/83353/2000 dated 07.06.2001, quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Subramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Abdul Wahab For Respondents : Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P.,for R1 to R4 Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi for R5 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J.,) The petitioner claims to belong to "Christian Illuvar" Community. She obtained Community Certificate from the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar on 22.09.1999. She applied for joining the MBBS Course. She was selected and given a seat under the Backward Class quota. At the time of counselling, the Selection Committee members raised a query regarding her caste, i.e. 'Christian Pillai', which did not contain the sub-caste, viz., "Christian Pillai Illuvar". In spite of production of the community certificate, she was not given a seat. Hence, she filed W.P.No.13158 of 2000, which was allowed and she was permitted to join the College and pursue her studies. 2. The 1st respondent issued a notice, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why her community certificate shall not be cancelled. When she appeared for the enquiry, she was asked to produce the service particulars of her father as well as her mother. Her father was a retired Ex-serviceman and her mother was a State Government employee. She produced her mother's SSLC certificate and service book, which showed that she belongs to 'Illuva' Caste. She also produced her father's brother's son's community certificate to the effect that he belongs to Backward community of 'Illathu Pillaimar'. In G.O.Ms.No.28, BC & MBCW.Dept.dated 19.07.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.100, BC & MBCW(BCC Dept) dated 24.11.1997, item 35 shows that 'Illathu Pilliamar' and 'Illuvar' castes come under Backward class. The petitioner could not produce copies of community certificate of her father's family because the marriage of her parents was an inter-caste one. The Committee, before whom she appeared, cancelled her certificate holding that 'Christian Pillaimar' caste is a Forward Class community and therefore, she is not entitled to have the Backward Class Community Certificate. Thereafter, she filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent also rejected her case and, therefore, the petitioner is before us. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the community 'Illathu Pillaimar' or 'Illuvar' is a Backward Class community and the parents of the petitioner have been accepted by their community as 'Illathu Pillaimar' or 'Illuva' though they are converted to Christianity. It was also submitted that their marriage is an inter-caste one and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.477 dated 27.06.1996 and the respondents cannot deny her the benefit of the concessions given to inter-caste marriages under the said G.O. The petitioner had produced her close relatives' community certificates which showed that they belonged to Backward class community and therefore, there is no reason to deny her the said status. Sl.No.142 in G.O.Ms.No.28, BC & MBCW.Dept.dated 19.07.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.100, BC & MBCW(BCC Dept) dated 24.11.1997 in the "List of Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities throughout the State of Tamil Nadu unless and otherwise specified" (hereinafter referred to as 'the List') contains "Converts to Christianity from any Hindu Backward Classes Community or Most Backward Classes Community or Denotified Communities except the Communities mentioned therein" and therefore, even from that perspective, the petitioner is entitled to the Backward Class community certificate. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader would, however, submit that G.O.Ms.No.477, Social Welfare Department dated 27.06.1975 will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner since both her parents are Christians and, therefore, their marriage cannot be called 'inter-caste marriage'. Moreover, Sl.No.35 in the List shows only Illathu Pillaimar, Illuvar, Ezhuvar and Illathar in contrast to Sl.No.82, which refers to Nadar, Shanar and Gramani (including Christian Nadar, Christian Shanar and Christian Gramani). So, clearly the List does not include Christian Illathu Pillaimar or Christian Illuvar etc. Learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that Sl.No.142 will not apply to the instant case, since the petitioner's father had not claimed that status. 5. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader would specifically point out that paragraph 3(5) of the impugned order shows that when the petitioner first applied, she declared in her application form that she belonged to 'Christian Pillai', which is a Forward Class Community and it is only when her application was rejected, she had declared her community as Backward class. The Special Government Pleader also referred to a representation made by the petitioner before the Chairman, State Review Committee, wherein it is clearly shown that the appellant belongs to Christianity. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Both the parties have cited several decisions in order to support their respective stand. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in PROF.I.ELANGOVAN ..vs.. STATE OF TAMIL NADU ((2007) 3 MLJ 209). That applies to cases of conversion and re-conversion, as seen from the following head notes. "III. Ordinarily a person who is converted from Hinduism to Christianity would cease to be a member of the caste to which he belonged. If a child is born after such conversion and he reconverts to Hinduism, the question whether he will re-gain the caste will depend on whether the members of the caste to which the parents belonged prior to their conversion accept him as a member within their fold". Various decisions on this issue were considered in this case and in fact, at paragraph 7, the Division Bench has stated as follows: "The issue whether a Christian, on re-conversion to Hinduism can again claim to be a member of his earlier community (Scheduled Caste), fell for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time and the matter now stands settled". 8. Therefore, these are cases where a Christian, on re- conversion to Hinduism, claimed to be a member of the original community. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner continues to be a Christian and so also her parents. Therefore, the ratio of the above case will not apply to the present case. Similarly, M.SHIVA ..vs.. DISTRICT ELEMENTATRY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THENI AND OTHERS (2007) 6 MLJ 969) also was a case relating to Christian by birth, who is converted to Hinduism. 9. In the present case, the father had served in the Indian Army and his certificate did not show that he belonged to Backward class community. According to the learned senior counsel, it is because, mention of the community status was not required while serving in the Indian Army. The mother's certificate shows her caste as 'Christian Illathu Pillaimar'. 10. We have already seen in the List of Backward Classes that there is no entry which contains Christian Illuvar or Illathu Pillaimar. Entry 142 also cannot apply to the petitioner because her parents were admittedly Christians and in fact, there is material to show that even the grandfather of the petitioner was a Christian. Therefore, when the father and grandfather are Christians, there is no doubt that the petitioner is also a Christian. The list does not recognise 'Christian Illathu Pillaimar' as a Backward class. Further, in the impugned order, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it is seen that when she originally applied, she had shown herself as Christian Backward Class. As regards the inter-caste marriage, the G.O.Ms.No.477 reads as follows: "The Government have been extending certain concessions to the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes from time to time. A question has arisen about the determination of the community of the children born out of intercaste marriages that is marriages, (1) between a person of a Scheduled Tribe and another of a Scheduled Caste or Backward Class or Forward Class, (2) between a person of a Scheduled Caste and another of a Backward Class or Forward Class, and (3) between a person of a Backward Class and of a Forward Class shall be considered to belong to either the community of the father or the community of the mother accordingly to the declaration of the parents regarding the way of life in which the children are brought up and that the declaration is in respect of one child will apply to all children". 11. It is the case of the petitioner that she would take the benefit of the mother's caste. As regards the application of G.O.Ms.No.477, there is no material before us to show that the mother of the petitioner is converted to Christianity from Backward class. No doubt, her service book shows that she is a Christian. We do not know whether the mother was converted to Christianity or whether she was born in a Christian family. For this, there is no material. Unless the parents themselves had converted to Christianity, then perhaps they may be entitled to the benefit of being included in the Backward class under Sl.No.142 and if so, the petitioner, being their daughter, may be entitled to such community certificate; but for that, there is no material. On the basis of the available materials, we do not think that there is any error in the impugned order, rejecting her community certificate. 12. Now we come to the facts of the case. It appears that the petitioner has completed her MBBS course. It would be unjust to deny her the degree, or the right to practice Medicine. But she cannot claim the benefit of Backward Class status in future. In 1994 (6) SCC 241 (Kumari Madhuri Patil and another ..vs.. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others) and 2001 (1) SCC 4 (Maharashtra ..vs.. Milind), the Supreme Court allowed the applicant to continue the studies to get the benefit of the course, but declared that the said person cannot take advantage of the status. We will follow the same course. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. In the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: (a) The respondents shall issue Course Completion certificate to the petitioner and she shall be entitled to register her name in the Medical Register maintained by the State Government. (b) The petitioner will also be entitled to get a degree. (c) She will also be entitled to have her name registered in the Medical Council. (d) All the procedural formalities that are required to be completed on her completion of Course, shall not be denied to her because of the cancellation of the certificate. (e) The petitioner is, however, precluded from claiming any benefits as a person belonged to the Backward Class in future. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected WPMP.is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gl To 1. The Secretary, District Vigilance Committee Tuticorin District, Collectorate, Tuticorin. 2. The Chairman, BC and MBC and Minority Welfare Dept., State Review Committee & Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Director of Medical Education, Chennai. 4. Govt.Medical College, Tuticorin. 5. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai-32. 1 cc to Mr.M.a. Abdul Wahab, Advocate, SR. 56671 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 56585 Writ Petition No.41041 of 2002 KJ (CO) kk 21/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/