IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 18765 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NIROSHA.G.S, MADATHUVILA VEEDU, CHERUVARAKONAM.P.O, PARASSALA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-689502. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION AND CONVENOR SCREENING COMMITTEE, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 3. KIRTADS, KOZHIKODE-17, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 4. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, KIRTADS, VIGILANCE CELL, KIRTADS, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS, KOZHIKODE-17. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.18765 OF 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 16.6.05 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES, KERALA 2007 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT AND NOTICE DATED 29.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY VIDE ORDER NO.B3-1254/07/CEE(12) DATED 25.6.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.A1/2658/07/CEE/L.DIS. DATED 21.8.07 ALONG WITH APPLICATION EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES-2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES-2008. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF ADMIT CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF CATEGORY/COMMUNITY WISE LIST EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF PETITION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 14.6.2008 EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF KERALA GAZETTE DATED 25.2.75 WITH REGARD TO RECONVERSION EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE DATED 23.10.1979 WITH REGARD TO RECONVERSION EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE KERALA CHRAMAR SANGHAM ON 1.12.1986 EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY KERLA CHERAMAR SANGHAM ON 1.12.1986 EXT.P19TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DTD.17.4.07 EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY KERALA CHERAMAR SANGHAM ON 13.6.08 EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORITIES EMPOWERED TO ISSUE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES CERTIFICATE AS PER CIRCULARS DATED 2.5.1975 AND 22.3.77 EXT.P22 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.34/87/SC/STDD DATDD 27.7.87 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P23 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 15.12.87 VIDE NO.18421/E2/87/SC/STDD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P24 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 30.9.95 VIDE NO.12633/E2/94/SC/STDD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. / TRUE COPY / H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18765 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 15th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The petitioner claims that she belongs to the Hindu Cheramar Caste which is a Scheduled Caste community. For admission to the Professional Courses, she had filed an application claiming the status of the Scheduled Caste community. Along with the application filed, she had also enclosed a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, wherein he had stated that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Cheramar community which is a Scheduled Caste community. 2. Admission card is also issued to the petitioner, and by virtue of which she is permitted to appear in the selection process. Thereafter, while publishing the State merit list, the second respondent has allotted the petitioner a seat in Other Backward Christian category. Aggrieved by this action of the second respondent, the petitioner has filed a representation dated 14.6.2008 before the second respondent. Even before the second respondent could consider the grievance made out in that representation, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. W.P.(C) No.18765 of 2008 2 3. The learned Single Judge has thought it fit to refer the matter to the Division Bench for consideration and decision. That is how we have taken up the matter for considering the case of the petitioner for admission as well as the interim prayer. 4. We have heard Sri.K.Jaju Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. In our opinion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is wholly premature. We say so for the reason, that, the petitioner had filed an application claiming the status of Hindu Cheramar community which is a Scheduled Caste community. She is also permitted to write the Entrance Examination. While publishing the State merit list for admission to Medical/Agricultural Courses, 2008, the petitioner is placed under Other Backward Christian category. If for any reason, the petitioner was of the opinion that the second respondent ought not to have placed her in the Scheduled Caste category, she was expected to make an appropriate representation and get an appropriate answer/order from the second respondent and if for any reason the petitioner was not satisfied with the response of the second respondent, then only she could have approached this Court for appropriate reliefs. W.P.(C) No.18765 of 2008 3 6. It so happens that for the previous year, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations had passed an order dated 25.6.2007 and in that had rejected the claim of the petitioner for reservation under Scheduled Caste community. It is that order which is called in question in the writ petition filed in the year 2008. Since there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, the writ petition can also be dismissed on that ground. We do not intend to do so. 7. In view of what we have discussed in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted by us. Accordingly, the writ petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/dk.