IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 OP.No. 10687 of 1998(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.V. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. K. VELUKUTTY, FERKA REVENUE INSPECTOR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT THEKKEDATH HOUSE, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SCRUITINY COMMITTEE FOR VARIFICATION OF SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBES CLAIMS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES OF SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBES (KIRTADS), KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SC/ST) SRI. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 10687/1998-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. B7-1222/95 DTD. 04/02/1995 BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/06/1996 IN O.P. NO. 1743/96-G OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. V/D-1311/96 DTD. 08/11/1996 BY THE R.3. TO PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 16/11/1996 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. WITH 16 INTERNAL DOCUMENTS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 20/12/1996 BY THE R.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 01/02/1997 BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 17/03/1997 WITH 2 INTERNAL ENCLOSURES. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.16302/G2/96/SC ST DD DTD. 07/03/1998 OF THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.46/98/SC ST DD DTD. 06/05/1998. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 24/07/1997 IN O.P. NO. 12703/1997-K OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.45403/98 IN O.P.25894/98-G, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P. NO. 963/96 DT. 26/02/1997. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 10687 of 1998 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a member of the “Vettuvan' community, which is recognised as a scheduled caste community in the State of Kerala. At the time of filing the original petition, he was working as a Firka Revenue Inspector in Taluk Office, Kollam, which employment he obtained availing of reservation benefits as a member of a scheduled caste. (He has retired by now). When promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent was delayed, on the ground of doubt regarding his community status, he filed representations to the Board of Revenue. He also filed O.P. No. 1743/1996 before this Court challenging Ext. P1 communication from the Tahsildar, cancelling the community certificate issued to him. By Ext. P2 judgment in O.P. No. 1743/1996 dated 16-6-1996, this Court directed the Board of Revenue to refer the case of the petitioner to the scrutiny committee for a decision as to whether the petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste or not. The matter was referred to the KIRTADS, who conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext. P5 report to the scrutiny committee finding that the petitioner belongs to 'Veduvar Pillai' community, which is not recognized as a scheduled caste community in the State of Kerala and that he is not a member of the Vettuvan community. The scrutiny committee issued Ext. P6 notice on 1-2-1997 to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed Ext. P7 explanation. By Ext. P8 dated 7-3-1998, the scrutiny committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to the “Veduvar Pillai” community. Pursuant thereto, by Ext. P9 order prosecution proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this original petition challenging Exts.P5, P8 and P9. 2. The petitioner raises two points. First is that the action in respect of the petitioner was initiated prior to coming into force of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, which came into force only on 1- 12-1996 and by virtue of the decision of this Court in Prakash v. State of Kerala, 2002 (2) KLT 580, continuation of the proceedings by a scrutiny committee constituted prior to the coming into force of the Act is without jurisdiction. The second contention is that the findings in Ext. P5 report and Ext. P9 order of the scrutiny committee are perverse and against the evidence adduced by the petitioner in support of his contention. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would support the order. He points out that in view of the amendment to the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, by Amendment Act of 2008 introducing a new Section 31, the action taken by the scrutiny committee in accordance with the Supreme Court decision prior to the coming into force of the Act has been specifically validated and therefore the impugned orders are perfectly valid and proper. As far as the contentions of the petitioner on merits are concerned, he would point out that the KIRTADS have conducted an anthropological study of the family of the petitioner starting from his great grand-father and they have come to the conclusion arrived at in Ext. P5 that the petitioner belongs to the community “Veduvar Pillai” and not “Vettuvan” community on the basis of material available on record. The learned Government Pleader points out that there is nothing perverse in the findings of the KIRTADS and that of the scrutiny committee. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. As far as the first contention regarding the jurisdiction of the scrutiny committee is concerned, although the decision in Prakash's case may support the petitioner, in view of the amendment of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, by the Amendment Act in 2008, which was subsequent to that decision, all orders of the scrutiny committee, which were in existence prior to the coming into force of the Act, has been validated under Section 31. Section 31 reads thus: “31. Validation:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, any order passed by the Scrutiny Committee constituted by Notification G.O.(P) No. 16/95/SCSTDD dated the 8th May, 1995 consequent to the judgment dated the 2nd September, 1994 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5854/1994, during the period from 8th day of May, 1995 to the 24th day of April, 2002 shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates (Amendment) Act, 2008 and accordingly anything done or any action taken by the Scrutiny Committee constituted on the 8th May, 1995 in the purported exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act shall not be deemed to be invalid on the ground that the Scrutiny committee had not been constituted under the provisions of this Act.” By that Section, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, the orders of the scrutiny committee constituted prior to the coming into force of the Act has been validated. As such, the decision in Prakash's case cannot come to the assistance of the petitioner in support of his contention regarding want of jurisdiction. In view of the specific validation by the amendment Act, the impugned orders cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. 6. Regarding the contention on merits, I have gone through Ext. P5 report of the KIRTADS and the scrutiny committee. The petitioner has been given full opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the KIRTADS and the scrutiny committee. The petitioner's genealogical tree has been traced from his great grand-father. Almost all conceivable relative of the petitioner has been referred to therein. Very cogent reasons have been stated in that report to come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Vettuvan community but belongs to Veduvar Pillai community. Of course, counsel for the petitioner would point out that document no. 12 produced by the petitioner has been wrongly construed by the KIRTADS. Even assuming that it is true, I do not think that that alone would render the conclusion in the report of the KIRTADS. The other overwhelming evidence available would conclusively show that the petitioner belongs to Veduvar Pillai community. Perhaps, another person looking at the same evidence may come to a different conclusion. That alone is not a reason to find that Ext. P5 report or Ext. P6 order based on the same is in any way perverse. To my mind, the reasoning given in Ext. P5 as also in Ext. P8 is very cogent and supports the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to Veduvar Pillai community and not Vettuvan community. In view of the above findings, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/