IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 170 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2724/2010 Dated 29/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ K.R.ANIL KUMAR, PLANCHUVATTIL VEEDU, CHEMBU, VAIKOM(FORMERLY: DRIVER PC 979,A.R.CAMP KOTTAYAM). BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT(G) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMANDANT, ARMED RESERVE, A.R.CAMP, KOTTAYAM. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.170 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 30th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He obtained employment as Police Constable under the Government, producing a caste certificate, which stated that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe (Mala Arayan) Community. Later, the Scrutiny Committee found that he belonged to OBC (Valan) community, and therefore, the said Committee directed to cancel the caste certificate, which stated that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe (Mala Arayan) community. Relying on the report of the said Committee, the Government have passed consequential orders, Ext.P4. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :- “The Committee, after considering the above contentions and carefully examining the documentary evidences and all facts and evidences, decided to reject the Scheduled Tribe (Mala Arayan) claim of the claimant Sri.K.R.Anilkumar. Government therefore, issue the following orders : (i) It is declared that Sri.K.R.Anil Kumar, Keetuparambil House, Chembu P.O., Vaikom, Kottayam, now working as Police Constable No.6660, Armed Reserve Camp, Kottayam, and members of his family do not belong to Scheduled Tribe (Mala Arayan) Community, but belong to Valan Community. (ii) None of the members of his family shall be eligible for any of the benefits exclusively intended for members of the Scheduled Tribes. If any of them, has availed of any WA NO.170/2010 2 benefits meant for members of the Scheduled Tribes, all such benefits shall be stopped. (iii) If the caste name of any of the family members of Sri.K.R.Anil Kumar is recorded in their academic records as Mala Arayan (Scheduled Tribe), it shall be got corrected as Valan (OBC) (iv) Scheduled Tribe certificates shall not be issued to any of the members of his family hereafter. All Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates secured by them, shall be treated as cancelled. (v) The service of Sri.K.R.Anil Kumar shall be terminated forthwith. 4. Compliance report on these orders shall be forwarded to Government by all concerned, at the earliest.” Challenging the said order, the writ petition was filed. Though, the learned Single Judge admitted the writ petition, no interim relief was granted, though there was a prayer for the same, in the writ petition. This Writ Appeal is filed, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.1.2010, declining to grant the interim relief. 2. We heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Sri.P.Santhoshkumar, the learned Special Government Pleader, who appeared for the respondents. We notice that, this is an order passed in the discretion of the learned Single Judge. A plausible view, concerning the interim relief has been taken. Unless the said view is grossly perverse or WA NO.170/2010 3 arbitrary, the Appellate Court is not justified in interfering with the same. Since we do not think that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, concerning the interim relief is perverse or arbitrary, we are not justified in interfering with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. But, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the appellant. If the appellant moves for early hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge will consider whether any preference in the matter of hearing could be granted, so that the writ petition itself can be disposed of, on an early date. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.170 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 30th January, 2010.