IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2007 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1929 OP.No. 7768 of 1995(Y) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.RAMESHAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 46 YEARS, HEAD CONSTABLE NO.1957, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 3. SECRETARY, SCHEDULE CASTE, SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT (E) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. UNION OF INDIA REP.BY MINISTERY OF HOME AFFAIRS (SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULED TRIBES DIVISION), NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.JOSHI GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO. 13382/1995 IN OP. NO.7768/1995 DISMISSED 20/06/2007 ST/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY IN THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.591/93/SC/ST DT. 29.11.93. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.1716/94-D DT. 30.6.94. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt) NO.2416/94/HOME DT. 9.11.94. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE ISSUE BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LETTER DT. 15.6.93 EXT.R1(b) -DO- -DO- DT. 10.5.95. /TRUE COPY/ tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. No. 7768 OF 1995 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th June, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 order issued by the 1st respondent and Ext. P5 show cause notice. The facts leading to the case are the following: The petitioner was employed as Head Constable in Kannur District. He belonged to 'Chakliyan' community and hence was given the benefit of Scheduled Caste. Going by the relevant entry in the S.S.L.C. book he belongs to the community known as Chakliyan. In respect of the said aspect the KIRTADS happened to make an investigation and based on the report submitted thereon, by Ext. P2 the Government declared that the petitioner does not belong to Chakliyan community, and that he belongs to another community namely “Perumkollan” which can come only under the O.B.C. category. As per Ext. P2 consequent directions were also issued to proceed against him. The petitioner OP No.7768 /95 -2- challenged the same before this Court in O.P. No. 1716/94. During the pendency of the O.P. he was dismissed from service, which order was also challenged by amending the O.P. Petitioner had challenged it by filing a review petition also and as per the directions of this Court in Ext. P3 judgment the review petition was heard and the same was disposed of by Ext. P4 order dated 9-11-1994. The Government found that the original order of punishment was passed without fulfilling the mandatory requirements as contemplated in the relevant rules and accordingly set aside the order dated 3-4-1994 removing the petitioner from service. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to him as per Ext. P5 and the petitioner submitted a detailed reply by way of Ext. P6. He approached this Court by filing this writ petition, challenging Exts. P2 & P5. There is an interim order staying the further action in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Section 30 of the Kerala OP No.7768 /95 -3- (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (Act 11/1996) a community certificate issued by a competent authority before the commencement of the Act shall be valid unless it is cancelled under the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that going by Section 11 of the Act the Scrutiny Committee alone is the authority to cancel the same. He relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in M.F.A. No. 1318 of 1999 and that of a learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 13622 of 1999 in support of the said contention. 3. In M.F.A. No. 1318 of 1999 this Court noted that the Scrutiny Committee was constituted based on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Kumari Madhuri Patil & another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others (1994 (6) SCC 241). It was held that as the certificates on the strength of which the petitioners obtained employment were issued as per the Rules and Orders then in force. They shall be deemed to be valid unless it OP No.7768 /95 -4- is cancelled under the provisions of the Act in question. Their Lordships set aside the order in view of the above legal position. The above judgment was followed in O.P. No. 13622 of 1999 also. 4. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that the proceedings could not be finalised in view of the interim order passed by this Court and meanwhile he has retired from service also. But at the same time, the Government is empowered to take action in accordance with law based on the report of the KIRTADS. 5. Since under Section 30 of Act 11/96 a community certificate issued by a competent authority before the commencement of the Act shall be valid and shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of the Act unless it is cancelled under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner who obtained a community certificate under the relevant orders which were in force can very well rely upon the same as the proceedings against him are yet to be finalised. As the said Act came into force during the pendency of OP No.7768 /95 -5- this O.P., the subject matter herein also will be governed by its provisions. Only a Scrutiny Committee under Section 11 will be able to go into the validity of the certificate and hence Ext. P2 and other consequential proceedings taken will not be valid. Therefore, Exts. P2 and P5 are quashed. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of making it clear that the respondents will be free to take action under the provisions of Act 11/1996 and finalise the same, if not already finalised, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the petitioner can take up all contentions before the Scrutiny Committee or other competent forums, including the challenge against the report of the KIRTADS. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE jan/