IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 19393 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAGAR GIRISH, S/O.GIRISH, ORATHEL HOUSE, KOOVAKANDOM P.O., POOMALA, VELLIAMATTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. DIRECTOR OF KERALA INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (KIRTADS), KOZHIKODE - 673001. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19393 of 2011(Y) 2 PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ANTHROPOLGICAL REPORT PREPARED BY VIGILANCE OFFICER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.05.2011. EXT.P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 26.05.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRTANCE EXAMINATION. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-226/11/CW DATED 10.06.2011 EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE DATED 01.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE AKHILA THIRUVITHAMKOOR MALA ARAYA MAHA SABHA, POOMALA BRANCH EXT.P5 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF S.S.L.C. CERTIFICATE OF GIRISH.O.I.(FATHER OF THE PETITIONER) OF GOVERNMENT H.S.POOMALA EXT.P6 :TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF S.S.L.C. CERTIFICATE OF SAJITHA K.NAIR (MATHER OF THE PETITIONER) OF GOVERNMENT H.S.POOMALA EXT.P7 :TRUEW PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 02.06.2011 ISSUED FROM THE GOVERNMENT TRIBAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, POOMALA STATING THAT THE EPTITIONER'S BROTHER STUDIED IN THE GOVERNMENT TRIBAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, POOMALA EXT.P8 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY CERTIFICATE DATED 06.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE BRANCH NO.33, SREE KRISHNA VILASAM KARAYOGAM OF AKHILA THIRUVITHAMKOOR MALA ARAYA MAHASABHA, H.O. PNNCHAVAYAL. POOMALA, POOVAKANDOM EXT.P9 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 30.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE THAHASILDAR, THODUPUZHA EXT.P10. :TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ONLINE REJECTION LETTER TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE COMMISSION OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 2011 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE pm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 19393 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the resident of Poomal in Velliamattom Village of Idukki District. He had made an application for Entrance Examination for admission to Professional Degree Courses, 2011. In the said application petitioner claimed the benefit of reservation as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe. This was on the basis that he belongs to Mala Araya Community. 2. It appears that on receipt of his application the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell of KIRTADS for enquriy. Accordingly Exhibit P1 report was submitted by the enquiry Officer, recommending rejection of the petitioner's claim. On receipt of the report the first respondent issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him. Accordingly petitioner appeared and submitted Exhibit P2 objection along with Exhibits P4 and P9. Finally Exhibit P3 order was passed accepting Exhibit P1 report and rejecting the petitioner's claim for reservation as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. It is thereupon this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Exhibits P1, P3 and Exhibit P10 informing him of rejection of his application. Consequential WP(C) No. 19393 of 2011 2 reliefs are also sought for. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that his father belongs to Mala Araya community of Scheduled Tribe, who had married his mother who is a Nair by birth. It is stated that inspite of the intercaste marriage of his father, the family continued to practice the customs and tradition of the Mala Araya community and suffered all disadvantages of being a Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that therefore he satisfied the requirements laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment in Indira Vs. State of Kerala [2005 (4) KLT 119] and GO(MS) 109/2008/SCSTDD, dated 20.11.2008. It is stated that his rightful claim has been overlooked in Exhibit P1 enquiry report and that despite having produced Exhibits P4 to P9 documents along with Exhibit P2 objection, the first respondent rejected his legitimate claim. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that a proper enquriy was held by the 2nd respondent which shows that the petitioner's grand father belongs to Mala Araya community and he had married from Hindu Dheevara community. It is stated that petitioner's father also contracted an intercaste marriage with a lady from Hindu Nair community and therefore the claim WP(C) No. 19393 of 2011 3 of the petitioner is only based on his grandfather's Scheduled Tribe status. It is stated that for that reason itself, it has to be held the petitioner was not subjected to the same social disabilities and that there was nothing to show that the family followed the same customs and traditions of the Scheduled Tribe community. 5. I have considered the submissions made. Admittedly petitioner's father also belong to Mala Araya community, it is inspite of it in Exhibit P1, the petitioner's claim has been appreciated on the basis that his grandfather alone belong to Mala Araya community. As far as the questions whether the petitioner had suffered the social disability and that whether the family is following the same customs and traditions and whether the community has accepted the family into its fold are concerned, I feel Exhibits P4 to P9 documents produced by the petitioner, are relevant while answering this issue. However a reading of Exhibit P3 shows that these documents which were produced by the petitioner along with Exhibit P2 were not properly adverted to by the first respondent. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that Exhibit P3 is issued without WP(C) No. 19393 of 2011 4 considering relevant materials which were produced by the petitioner. Therefore the matter need re-examination and in order to enable the first respondent to do so, I quash Exhibit P3 and direct him to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to produce any further materials which he relies on to substantiate his claims. 6. Orders in the matter shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks on production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. rkc //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE