IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15917 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.PADMANABHAN, PADMASRI, VAKETHODY MULLAMPARA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. C.KUMARAN, S/O. RAMAN,VIASAKHAM, KARUVAMTHIRUM PO, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT . 3. APPU.P.,S/O. VELAYUDHAN, POOLAKAL HOUSE RAMANKUTH P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 4. P.K.VALSALA, PALATHARA MUTHU MAHAL, COURT ROAD, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHUDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY SCHUDELED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SCRUTINY, COMMITTY FOR SCHUDELED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHUDELED CASTE/ SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 4. DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. TAHASILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GP. SRI. I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 15917 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the Government, whereby it has been clarified that Peruvannan is not a synonym of Vannan/Mannan/Peruvannan communities shown in serial number 37 of the Constitution(Scheduled Castes) Orders (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, and hence no correction of caste name from Peruvannan which is included in the list of OBC and OEC to Vannan/Mannan/Peruvannan(Scheduled Caste) communities be made on this count. Ext.P7 order has been issued pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Madhavi vs. Scrutiny Committee (2004 (3) KLT 967). The petitioners contention is that, that judgment was rendered without taking into account Ext.P1 order passed by the Government as early as on 13.9.1958. Whether the Division Bench decision has been rendered taking into account Ext.P1 or not, the same is binding on me and I cannot take a different view in this writ petition. Since Ext.P7 has been passed in accordance with the said judgment, following the judgment this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-