IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18310 of 2011(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ANUGEETHI, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.K.AJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT JAYA NIVAS, MEPPAYIL POST, VADAKARA-4, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR, KERALA INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE, KOZHIKODE-673 020. 3. VIGILANCE OFFICER, VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTHADS, KOZHIKODE-673 017. 4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE (DT)-673 101. 5. DIRECTOR OF HARIJAN WELFARE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HARIJAN WELFARE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18310/2011 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR APPEARING FOR THE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 2011 TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE RESULT SHEET DOWN LOADED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S SITE. P3: THE GENEALOGY OF THE PETITIONER'S FAMILY. P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.22/2/1979. P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 31/01/2011. P6: COPY OF THE CASTE MEMBERSHIP ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MANNAN-VANNAN SAMUTHAYA SANGHAM TALUK COMMITTEE DTD. 4/06/2011. P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED B Y THE SECRETARY, N.S.S.KARAYOGAM MEPPAYIL DTD. 4/06/2011. P8: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY DTD. 4/06/2011. P9: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S PARENTS BY THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION DTD. 24/09/2009. P10: COPY OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL REPORT PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 12/05/2011. P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 6/06/11. P12: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-261/11/CEE (7) DTD. 10/06/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P13: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 27/06/2010 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT CHALLENGING EXT.P10 ORDER. P14: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2548/82 DTD. 18/03/1982 AGREEING WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION ABOUT THE COMMUNITY OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. Kss ..2/- ..2.... WPC.NO.18310/2011 K P15: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER THERIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/06/2011. P16: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 1/07/2011 TO EXT.P15 RECEIVED FROM STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. P17: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 12/03/SCSTDD DTD. TRIVANDRUM 27/1/2003. P18: COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ON PAYMENT OF CHALLAN DTD. 15/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18310 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P10 and P12. 2. Petitioner is the daughter of one Ajayakumar. According to the petitioner her grandfather is a Nair who was married to Smt.Saradha, who belonged to Vannan community which is recognized as a schedule caste community in the State of Kerala. The said couple has two daughters and one son who were all brought up as members of Vannan community. It is stated that petitioner's mother belongs to Nair community and that the petitioner and other daughter were brought up as members of Vannan community. 3. According to the petitioner she made an application for admission to professional course in the year W.P.(C) No. 18310 OF 2011 :2 : 2011 and was issued Ext.P1 admit card for the entrance examination. However, her results were withheld as per Ext.P2, which according to the petitioner was for the reason that the authorities doubted her caste status. Her claim that she belonged to schedule caste community of Vannan was referred for enquiry by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext.P10 report, negativing the claim of the petitioner. That report was accepted by the screening committee and on that basis the first respondent issued Ext.P12 order rejecting the petitioner's application. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. First is that, an earlier report of the screening committee was relied on to hold that a member of the second generation cannot be treated as a schedule caste. It is stated that after Ext.P10 was communicated to W.P.(C) No. 18310 OF 2011 :3 : her, the petitioner made Ext.P15 application under Right to Information Act for obtaining a copy of the report relied on and by Ext.P16 she was informed that the report was not available in the office of the 3rd respondent. On this basis it is contended that a report which was not available has been relied on to turn down the claim of the petitioner and to that extend the report is vitiated for non application of mind. 5. The second contention raised is that Exts.P4 and P14 shows that her father belonged to the Vannam community and the 4th respondent has accepted the status. Ext.P5 is a caste certificate issued to the petitioner herself certifying that she belonged to Vannan community. Ext.P6 is a copy of the caste membership acceptance certificate issued by Mannan Vannan Samuthaya Sangham Taluk Committee. Ext.P7 is a certificate issued by NSS Karayogam Meppayil Unit to the effect that the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 18310 OF 2011 :4 : and her father are following custom and tradition of Vannan community and that they have no connection with the NSS. Ext.P8 is a certificate issued by the Chairman of the Vadakara Municipality, certifying that the petitioner belong to Vannan community. Relying upon these documents petitioner contends that she is a member of the Vannan community and that without any materials whatsoever or conducting any proper enquiry, her claim for schedule caste status has been rejected. 6. On the other hand, relying on the provisions of the Kerala Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 1996 the learned Government Pleader contended that the burden of proving that one belongs to a particular caste is entirely on the applicant. It is stated that there is nothing to prove that the documents relied upon by the petitioner were produced before the the enquiry officer. It is therefore W.P.(C) No. 18310 OF 2011 :5 : argued that the report and the findings thereon do not call for any interference. 7. I have considered the submissions. Although the petitioner has produced several documents before this court to support her claim, Ext.P10 enquiry report or Ext.P12 communication of the first respondent does not show these documents were produced by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent when enquiry was conducted. There is also no specific averment in the writ petition that these documents were made available by the petitioner during the course of enquiry. In such a situation on the materials available before this court, the only conclusion that is possible is that the petitioner did not discharge her burden of proving that she belonged to Vannan community which burden lies entirely on the petitioner in view of S.10 of the Act referred to above. If that be so, the 3rd respondent or the first respondent cannot be faulted with W.P.(C) No. 18310 OF 2011 :6 : for the conclusions that they have arrived at in Exts.P10 and P12. 8. Be that as it may, if Exts.P4 to P8 and P14 were produced, the conclusions need not have been the same as reflected in Ext.P10. In view of these documents which do not appear to have been produced during the enquiry, I feel fairness requires that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to have the materials produced and on that basis the matter should be reconsidered. In that view of the matter, I direct that the petitioner will produce Exts.P4 to P8 and Ext.P14 referred to above before the first respondent who thereupon shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the materials so produced and necessary action shall be taken on that basis. It is directed that the petitioner shall produce the materials as directed above along with a copy of this judgment before the first respondent within 10 days from W.P.(C) No. 18310 OF 2011 :7 : today and if the materials are so produced, the matter will be reconsidered and fresh orders will be passed within four weeks thereafter. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge