IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 26146 of 1999(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.P.RAVEENDRAN, TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. State of Kerala, rep. By the secretary to Govt., Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Trivandrum. 2. Commissioner, Land Revenue, Trivandrum. 3. Secretary, SC/ST Development Dept., Secretariat, Trivandrum. 4. Director, Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Vikas Bhavan, Trivandrum. 5. Director, KIRTADS, Kozhikode. 6. District Collector, Malappuram. 7. Sherlice Chacko, D/o.Alice Chacko, Student, Govt. Nursing School, Manjeri, Malappuram. BY ADV. SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN FOR R7 SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SC FOR IT G.P. SHRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.5.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No.26146/99. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.4.8.98. P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.25.1.1977 P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.22.8.98. P4. COPY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DTD.12.9.99. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.26146 of 1999 ================== Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Tahsildar. He issued a community certificate to the 7th respondent stating that the 7th respondent belongs to Malai Araya community which is a recognised Scheduled Tribe in the State of Kerala. In respect of the caste status of the 7th respondent there was an enquiry by the KIRTADS, which resulted in Ext.P4 order of the scrutiny committee as provided under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996. In the report of the scrutiny committee, after finding that the 7th respondent does not belong to the Malai Araya community, the scrutiny committee severely criticized the action of the petitioner in issuing the community certificate to the 7th respondent and went on to hold that the petitioner deliberately did it to unjustly help the 7th respondent to get admission to the General Nursing and Midwifery Course under the Scheduled Tribe quota. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and seeks the o.p.26146/99 2 following reliefs in this original petition: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the original of Ext.P4. ii) issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents 1 to 6 from taking any action against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4.” 2. The petitioner's contention is that he issued the caste certificate bona fide relying on Ext.P1 report of the Tahsildar, Meenachil. He would submit that at the relevant time, as per Ext.P2 Government order, the Government had directed that the principles enumerated in G.O.(Ms.).No.298/61/Rev. dated 23.3.1961, shall be adopted for determining the caste of the children born to inter-caste marriages for all purposes, according to which, such children will be treated as belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, if either of the parents belongs to that community. The petitioner would submit that the 7th respondent was an offspring born in an inter-caste married couple, of which the mother was a Malai Araya. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that in Ext.P4 the fact that the mother of the 7th respondent was a member of Malai Araya community had been confirmed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that there was absolutely no occasion for the scrutiny committee o.p.26146/99 3 to make observations against the petitioner. 3. The counsel for the petitioner points out that in any event, Ext.P4 in this writ petition was challenged by the 7th respondent in O.P.No.26506/1999, wherein the claim of the 7th respondent for being treated as Scheduled Tribe was upheld and on that basis, admission given to the 7th respondent was regularised, although in that judgment it was made cleat that if the 7th respondent makes any further claim for employment or admission to another course on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe, the respondents would be free to deal with the same independently without being fettered by that judgment. In view of the above factual situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek quashing of the observations of the scrutiny committee in Ext.P4 and to restrain respondents 1 to 6 from taking any action against the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P4. 4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. Therefore, I must accept the averments of the petitioner in the original petition as true and correct. Ext.P1 is the communication o.p.26146/99 4 from the Tahsildar, Meenachil, to the Tahsildar Nilambur, which certifies that the forefathers of the 7th respondent belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, Hindu Malai Araya. In Ext.P2 Government order it is made clear that the children born in inter-caste marriages would be treated as members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community if either of the parents belongs to that community. From Ext.P4 report of the scrutiny committee it is clear that the father of the 7th respondent belongs to Marthoma Christian community and the mother of the 7th respondent was a member of Malai Araya community. Therefore, it cannot now be disputed that at the relevant time, Ext.P2 Government order was holding the field, according to which, the action of the petitioner in issuing a caste certificate to the 7th respondent showing her as Hindu Malai Araya could not have been faulted. In any event, since by the judgment in O.P.No.26506/1999 dated 5.8.2005 the claim of the 7th respondent for admission for General Nursing Course as a Scheduled Tribe had been accepted, the petitioner's stand in the matter has been vindicated. For that reason also, no action can now be initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the observations in Ext.P4 against him. In the above o.p.26146/99 5 circumstances, I allow this original petition and hold that the observations in Ext.P4 report of the scrutiny committee against the petitioner cannot be held against him for any purpose. No proceedings whatsoever shall be initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the observations against him in Ext.P4 report. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.26146/99 6 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No.26146 of 1999-K =============== J U D G M E N T 30th May, 2008 o.p.26146/99 7