C. SELVARANI versus THE SPECIAL SECRETARY-CUM-DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1504, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1504 : 2024 INSC 900
C. Selvarani  
v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 13086 of 2024)
26 November 2024
[Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to the Scheduled Caste 
community certificate, indicating that she belongs to Valluvan 
caste, which is recognized as one of the Scheduled Castes in 
the S.C. Order, 1964. 
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 341 – Constitution (Pondicherry) 
Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 – Appellant was selected for 
the post of Upper Division Clerk under the Scheduled Caste 
category – Respondent Authorities directed her to produce the 
original latest community, residence and nativity certificates 
issued by the Tahsildar – Appellant applied for the same – 
Her application was rejected by the respondent no.3 on the 
ground that she does not profess Hinduism, Buddhism and 
Sikhism and therefore, the community certificate under the S.C. 
Order, 1964, could not be issued to her – The said rejection 
was affirmed by the Appellate Authorities as well as by the 
High Court – Correctness:
Held: The report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, 
after a detailed enquiry and through the documentary evidence 
collected, would clearly establish that the appellant’s father belonged 
to Scheduled Caste community and the appellant’s mother was a 
Christian and their marriage was performed as per the Christian 
rituals and was duly
registered – Thereafter, the appellant’s 
father had converted to Christianity through baptism and when 
the appellant was born, she was also baptized – Therefore, it 
is clear that the appellant was a born Christian and she would 
not be entitled to claim the certificate under Scheduled Caste 
*Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1505
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
Category – The said facts were also admitted by four persons of 
the same village – They also stated that appellant regularly attended 
the church activities and her name found place in the Church’s 
baptismal register – As far as reconversion of appellant and her 
family to Hinduism is concerned, there is no positive act to evince 
such conversion – There is no public record to show that she or 
her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary, there 
is a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity – In 
the instant case, the appellant was a born Christian and could not 
be associated with any caste – In any case, upon conversion to 
Christianity, one loses her caste and cannot be identified by it – In 
view of that, in terms of the S.C. Order, 1964, as per which, the 
Scheduled Caste community certificate can be issued only to a 
person who is professing either Hinduism Sikhism or Buddhism, 
the appellant is not entitled to the Scheduled Caste community 
certificate. [Paras 11, 12, 14]
Constitution of India – Art. 25 – Conversion to derive the 
benefits of reservation – Not permitted:
Held: Every citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of 
their choice as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution – 
One converts to a different religion, when he/she is genuinely 
inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts –
However, 
if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of 
reservation but not with any actual belief on the other religion, 
the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of 
reservation to people with such ulterior motive will only defeat 
the social ethos of the policy of reservation – In the instant 
case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the 
appellant professes Christianity and actively practices the faith 
by attending church regularly – Despite the same, she claims to 
be a Hindu and seeks for Scheduled Caste community certificate 
for the purpose of employment – Such a dual claim made by 
her is untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as 
a Hindu after baptism – Therefore, the conferment of Scheduled 
caste communal status to the appellant, who is a Christian by 
religion, but claims to be still embracing Hinduism only for the 
purpose of availing reservation in employment, would go against 
the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the 
Constitution. [Para 15]
1506
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar [2006] 
Supp. 8 SCR 105 : (2007) 1 SCC 80 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 5 : 
2006 SCC OnLine SC 1130; Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish 
Balaram Bahira [2017] 11 SCR 271 : (2017) 8 SCC 670 : (2017) 
2 SCC (L&S) 708 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 715; S. Rajagopal v. 
C.M. Armugam [1969] 1 SCR 254 : 1968 SCC OnLine SC 261 : 
(1969) 1 SCJ 738 : AIR 1969 SC 101 – relied on.
Soosai v. Union of India and others [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 242 : 
1986 AIR 733; S.Anbalagan v. B.Devarajan and others [1984] 1 
SCR 973 : (1984) 2 SCC 112; Guntur and Others v. Mohan Rao 
[1976] 3 SCR 1046 : (1976) 3 SCC 411; KP Manu v. Chairman, 
Scrutiny Committee [2015] 3 SCR 243 : (2015) 1 SCC 1 : 2015 
SCC OnLine SC 161; Mohammad Sadique v. Darbara Singh Guru 
[2016] 4 SCR 372 : AIR 2016 SC 2054; Kailash Sonkar v. Maya 
Devi [1984] 2 SCR 176 : (1984) 2 SCC 91; Sapna Jacob, Minor 
v. State of Kerala AIR 1993 Ker 75 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes 
Order, 1964; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872.
List of Keywords
Scheduled Caste community certificate; Valluvan caste; 
Conversion; Reconversion to Hinduism; Christian; Baptism;  
Church activities; Christian Rituals; Policy of reservation; 
Employment under Schedule Caste Category; Loss of caste; 
Fraud on Constitution.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13086 of
2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 15865 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Ms. N. S. Nappinai, Sr. Adv., V. Balaji, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Aravindh S., Abbas B, Ms. Tharane S, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1507
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2023 passed 
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras1 dismissing Writ Petition 
No.15865 of 2022 preferred by the appellant herein. In the said writ 
petition, the appellant prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified 
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent 
No.3 vide proceedings No.1076/TOP/C/SC/2016 dated 19.06.2017 
and the order of the respondent No.2 in No.4583/DCR(N)/A2/2016/
CV/2070 dated 29.08.2017, quash the same as illegal, unlawful, 
arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural 
justice and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue 
Scheduled Caste community certificate to the appellant as per the 
Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964,2 based 
on the community certificates already issued by the respondent No.3 
in favour of the appellant as well as her family members. Through 
the order impugned herein, the High Court denied the claim of the 
appellant as devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed the writ 
petition. 
3.	
The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:
3.1.	 The appellant was born on 22.11.1990 to one Christian S/o. 
Mounien and Santhamarie and her birth was duly registered 
with Pondicherry
Municipality and her parents were permanent 
residents of Kombakkampet, Pondicherry. According to the 
appellant, her father, grandparents and great grandparents 
professed the Hindu religion and belonged to Valluvan Caste, 
which is recognised as one of the Scheduled Castes under the 
S.C. Order, 1964. Her mother Santhamarie was a Christian by 
birth and after marriage, she got converted to Hindu religion and 
started to profess the same. Thus, according to the appellant, 
1	
Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”
2	
Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the S.C. Order, 1964”
1508
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
she is a Hindu by religion and belongs to Valluvan Caste; and 
she successfully completed her school education and graduation 
by availing concessions under the Hindu Adi Dravida quota.
3.2.	 During 2015, the appellant applied for the post of Upper Division 
Clerk3 and after written examination, she was selected and her 
name was found at Serial No.48 under the Scheduled Caste 
category. In the course of certificate verification, though the 
appellant possessed the required certificates, the respondent 
authorities insisted her to produce the original latest community, 
residence and nativity certificates issued by the Tahsildar, 
within a period of one year from the date of publication of 
results, which would satisfy the requirement of being a resident 
in Puducherry for a continuous period of 5 years prior to the 
date of application. Pursuant thereto, the appellant made an 
application seeking community certificate as if she belongs to 
a Scheduled Caste category. 
3.3.	 However, the respondent No.3 passed an order dated 
29.03.2016 rejecting the appellant’s application on the ground 
that she does not profess Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism 
and therefore, the community certificate under the S.C. Order, 
1964, could not be issued to her. The appeal preferred against 
the said order came to be rejected by the respondent No.2, 
by order dated 18.07.2016. Thereagainst, the appellant went 
on further appeal, in which, the
respondent No.1 directed her 
to approach the High Court for further remedy, by order dated 
30.09.2016. 
3.4.	 Challenging the orders of rejection passed by the respondent 
authorities, the appellant preferred WP.No.43516 of 2016, which, 
by order dated 10.03.2017, was disposed of by the High Court, 
by directing the respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry on the 
appellant’s application and pass appropriate orders on merits 
and as per law. 
3.5.	 Accordingly, the respondent No.3, by communication dated 
30.03.2017, withdrew the order dated 29.03.2016 passed earlier 
and furnished all the documents to the appellant and directed 
3	
For short, “UDC”
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1509
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
her to offer her explanation as to why the Scheduled Caste 
Hindu Adi Dravida certificate should not be denied to her. After 
receipt of the appellant’s explanation, the respondent No.3 
passed the order dated 19.06.2017 rejecting the claim of the 
appellant, reiterating the same ground that she does not profess 
Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism and hence, the Scheduled Caste 
community certificate could not be issued to her. The appeals 
preferred against the said order before the respondent No.2 
and thereafter, respondent No.1, also, ended in dismissal, vide 
orders dated 29.08.2017 and 14.09.2017 respectively. 
3.6.	 In the meanwhile, the appellant approached the Central 
Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.310/00417/2017 against 
the order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the respondent No.7, 
cancelling her selection to the post of UDC, and obtained an 
interim order that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 shall keep one 
post of UDC vacant. Thereafter, the appellant filed WP. No.15865 
of 2022 for the relief as stated in paragraph 2 supra.
3.7.	 Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 
relying on the decision of this Court in Soosai v. Union of India 
and others,4 the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Feeling 
aggrieved, the appellant is before us with the present appeal. 
4.	
The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is 
that the
appellant professes the Hindu religion and she belongs to 
Valluvan caste, which falls within the ambit of the S.C. Order, 1964, 
and hence, she is entitled to get concession under the Adi Dravida 
quota. Continuing further, the learned counsel submitted that right 
from birth, the appellant is having affinity in professing Hinduism 
and has been going to Hindu temples and offering worship to 
Hindu deities; through various documents, the appellant was able to 
prove that she was born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, 
who also, after marriage, started to profess the Hindu religion; her 
grandparents and great grandparents belonged to Valluvan caste; 
and her grandmother Sivabakkiyam was buried at the burial ground 
belonging to the Valluvan community; throughout her educational 
career, the appellant was treated as belonging to Scheduled Caste 
4	
[1985] Supp. 3 SCR 242 : 1986 AIR 733
1510
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
community and the transfer certificates also affirmed her communal 
status as such; and the appellant’s father, appellant and her brother 
possessed the Scheduled Caste community certificates issued by 
the authority concerned. Without properly appreciating the same, the 
respondent authorities erred in rejecting the appellant’s application 
seeking issuance of Scheduled Caste community certificate, on the 
premise that she did not fulfill the basic criteria for the same, and 
the said decision was also affirmed by the High Court. It is also 
contended that the entry made in the Register of Baptism dated 
20.11.2015 itself shows that the appellant was born on 22.11.1990 
and her baptism had taken place on 06.01.1991, when she was 3 
months old and therefore, the same cannot be a ground to deny the 
issuance of Scheduled Caste community certificate to her.
4.1.	 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant 
that caste is assigned inherently at birth and does not cease 
to operate upon conversion of religion. Rather, it is eclipsed 
and can be regained upon reconversion, provided the caste / 
community is accepting the reconverted individual. The rationale 
behind the same can be understood as if the primary motive 
for conversion is upward social mobility which however does 
not operate in such a linear manner, rather the caste along 
with its socio-economic disparities continues to operate in 
the
individual’s life and therefore, denying the caste upon 
reconversion would not be right to set in law. Additionally, it is 
submitted that Hinduism does not prescribe any procedure to 
do conversion, however the key requirement for regaining caste 
status is that the reconvert must show a sincere intention to fully 
return to their original community, completely abandoning the 
new religion and embracing the customs and practices of their 
former caste, without opposition from its members. To buttress 
the same, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following 
decisions and the principles laid down therein:
(a)	  S.Anbalagan v. B.Devarajan and others 5 - ‘For reconversion 
to Hinduism, no particular ceremony such as expiratory 
rites need be performed unless the practice of the caste 
makes it necessary’. 
5	
[1984] 1 SCR 973 : (1984) 2 SCC 112
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1511
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
(b)	  The Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and others v. 
Mohan Rao6- ‘Even if a person does lose the membership 
of his caste, on reconversion to another religion, he can 
once again become a member of the caste in which he 
was born and to which he belonged before conversion to 
another religion, if the members of the caste accept him 
as a member’. 
(c)	
 KP Manu v. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee7 - ‘Three things 
that need to be established by a person who claims to 
be a beneficiary of the caste certificate are:(i) there must 
be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste 
that has been recognized by the Constitution (Scheduled 
Castes) Order,1950; (ii) there has been reconversion 
to the original religion to which the parents and earlier 
generations had belonged; and (iii)there has to be evidence 
establishing the acceptance by the community’.
(d)	  Mohammad Sadique v. Darbara Singh Guru8 - ‘A person 
can change his religion and faith but not the caste, to 
which he belongs, as caste has linkage to birth’. 
(e)	  Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi9 - ‘A caste to which a Hindu 
belongs is essentially determined by birth. When a person is 
converted to Christianity or some other religion, the original 
caste remains under eclipse and as soon as during his/her 
lifetime the person is reconverted to the original religion, 
the eclipse disappears and the caste
automatically revives. 
However, where it appears that the person reconverted to 
the old religion had been converted to Christianity since 
several generations, it may be difficult to apply the doctrine 
of eclipse to the revival of caste’.
Thus, according to the learned counsel, the appellant being a 
Hindu by religion and belonging to Valluvan caste, is entitled 
to the issuance of Scheduled Caste community certificate and 
denial of the same by the respondent authorities as affirmed 
6	
[1976] 3 SCR 1046 : (1976) 3 SCC 411
7	
[2015] 3 SCR 243 : (2015) 1 SCC 1 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 161
8	
[2016] 4 SCR 372 : AIR 2016 SC 2054
9	
[1984] 2 SCR 176 : (1984) 2 SCC 91
1512
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
by the High Court, is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and 
therefore, the orders impugned in this appeal as well as in the 
writ petitions deserve to be set aside.
5.	
Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, the learned 
counsel for the respondent(s) submitted that based on the application 
made by the appellant on 05.11.2015 seeking community certificate, 
the Village Administrative Officer, Kombakkampet, conducted a 
detailed enquiry and submitted his report dated 24.11.2015, which 
was endorsed by the Revenue Inspector, Mudaliarpet Firka. It is 
inter alia stated in the said report that the appellant’s father is a 
converted Christian; and the appellant was baptised on 06.01.1991 
at the Parish of Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, Puducherry as per the 
entry made in the Register of Baptism dated 20.11.2015. Whereas, 
the appellant submitted several documents including the Scheduled 
Caste community certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, 
Puducherry under the S.C. Order, 1964, in favour of her as well as 
her father and brother. Since there was a contradiction between 
the records submitted by the petitioner and the report of the Village 
Administrative Officer, the Tahsildar, Puducherry Taluk Office, directed 
the Village Administrative Officer to call for opinion about the religion 
of the appellant, from the villagers. Accordingly, a notice was affixed 
in the notice board and in the
conspicuous places in the village. In 
response, an objection was received from one Anand, through letter 
dated 06.01.2016 stating that the appellant’s father is a converted 
Christian and the appellant embraced Christianity and the marriage 
of her parents was registered at the Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, 
Puducherry; and the said statement was also acknowledged by four 
persons of the same village viz., Alencon Karthick, Ravishankar, 
Prakash and Arumugam of Kombakkampet. In view of the same, 
the Tahsildar passed the order dated 29.03.2016 stating that the 
appellant does not profess Hinduism and hence, the Scheduled 
Caste community certificate could not be issued to her, as per law.
5.1.	 Elaborating further, the learned counsel for the respondent(s) 
submitted that as per the order of the High Court dated 
10.03.2017 in WP.No.43516 of 2016, the Tahsildar, Puducherry 
Taluk Office, after calling for the explanation from the appellant, 
passed the order dated 19.06.2017 rejecting her application 
seeking issuance of Scheduled Caste community certificate and 
referred the matter to the District Committee for cancellation
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1513
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
of the community certificate already issued to the appellant; 
and the appellate authorities also confirmed the said order of 
rejection. Considering all these factors, the High Court rightly 
upheld the decision of the respondent authorities and dismissed 
the writ petition filed by the appellant, by the order impugned 
herein, which need not be interfered with by this Court.
6.	
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective 
parties and given our thoughtful consideration. 
7.	
On the basis of the pleadings and the submissions made by the 
parties, the issue that arises for our consideration is, whether the 
appellant is entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate, 
indicating that she belongs to Valluvan caste, which is recognized 
as one of the Scheduled Castes in the S.C. Order, 1964. 
8.	
At the outset, it would be apposite to briefly consider the legal position 
connected to this case. Article 341 of the Constitution of India deals 
with ‘Scheduled Castes’, which reads as under:
“341. Scheduled Castes
(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union 
territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the 
Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, 
races or tribes or parts of or group within castes, races or 
tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be 
deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to
that State 
or Union territory, as the case may be.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the 
list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued 
under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group 
within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a 
notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied 
by any subsequent notification. 
By exercising the power conferred under clause (1) of Article 341 of 
the Constitution, the President issued the Constitution (Pondicherry) 
Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.10 Clause 2 of the same reads as 
follows:
10	
For short, “the S.C. Order, 1964”
1514
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“2. The castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within 
castes, races or tribes specified in the Schedule to this 
Order shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed 
to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the Union territory of 
Pondicherry so far as regards members thereof resident 
in that Union territory:
Provided that no person, who professes a religion different 
from the Hindu (the Sikh or the Buddhist) religion shall be 
deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.”
Thus, it is manifestly clear from the above that only such castes 
which have been mentioned in the Schedule appended to the S.C. 
Order, 1964, shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes with respect 
to the Union Territory of Pondicherry; and that, a person, who is 
professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, shall be deemed to be 
a member of the Scheduled Caste. The Schedule appended to the 
S.C. Order, 1964, mentions 15 castes, in which, the Valluvan Caste 
finds place at Sl.No.13 and it is hence, recognized as a Scheduled 
Caste. That apart, the provisions of the S.C. Order, 1964 were upheld 
by this Court in Soosai (supra). It is also pertinent to mention here 
that the converts to Christianity from Scheduled Caste irrespective of 
generation of conversion would fall under the OBC category as per 
G.O. Ms. No. 9/2001-Wel(SW-II), dated 19.02.2001 of the Government 
of Puducherry and the Central List of OBC’s for Puducherry vide
No.12011/14/2004-BCC dated 12.03.2007. 
9.	
Admittedly, the appellant is a resident of Pondicherry and her birth 
was duly registered in the Pondicherry Municipality and she completed 
her school education at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Periyakalapet, 
Pondicherry, and B.Tech (IT) at Dr.Pauls Engineering College and 
M.Tech (IT) at Pondicherry Engineering College. There cannot be 
any dispute that the appellant’s father, appellant and her brother 
were in possession of Scheduled Caste Community Certificate issued 
by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Puducherry, which have not been 
cancelled till today. However, for the purpose of employment in public 
services, the appellant made application for issuance of Scheduled 
Caste community certificate. Upon enquiry, the said application 
was rejected by the respondent No.3 by order dated 29.03.2016, 
as affirmed by the appellate authorities. Subsequently, as directed
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1515
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
by the High Court,11 the said order of rejection was withdrawn by 
the respondent No.3 and the documents referred to in the same 
were furnished to the appellant. On receipt of the documents, the 
appellant filed her reply along with the required documents, including 
the community certificates issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk 
Office Puducherry in favour of the appellant’s father Christian S/o 
Mounien, appellant’s brother Selvaraj S/o Christian and the appellant 
Selvarani D/o Christian, transfer certificates issued by the school 
and college authorities and the common statement made by four 
individuals viz., Punniyakodi, Paramadayalam, Gabrial and Dess 
of the same village, indicating that the appellant professes Hindu 
religion and belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi Dravida) Community. 
Thereafter, the respondent No.3, placing reliance on the report of 
the Village Administrative Officer, denied the claim of the appellant 
on the premise that she embraced Christianity and therefore, she 
did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for issuance of Scheduled Caste 
community certificate, by order dated 19.06.2017. The said rejection 
order was upheld by the appellate authorities as well as by the High 
Court. Therefore, this Civil Appeal, at the instance of the appellant. 
10.	 As rightly held by the Kerala High Court in Sapna Jacob, Minor v. 
State of Kerala,12 the Court
cannot test or gauge the sincerity of 
religious belief; or where there is no question of the genuineness of 
a person’s belief in a certain religion, the court cannot measure its 
depth or determine whether it is an intelligent conviction or ignorant 
and superficial fancy. But, a Court can find the true intention of men 
lying behind their acts and can certainly find from the circumstances 
of a case whether a pretended conversion was really a means to 
some further end. Therefore, we shall determine the issue involved 
herein in the light of the factual matrix as well as the documentary 
evidence. 
11.	 As is evident from the records, the order dated 19.06.2017 was 
passed by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Puducherry, after furnishing the 
appellant all the necessary documents, including the letter sent by the 
objector Anand, certified copies of the entry in the Register of Baptism 
in respect of the appellant and her brother and the extract from the 
11	
vide order dated 10.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.43516 of 2016
12	
AIR 1993 Ker 75
1516
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Register of Marriage in respect of the parents of the appellant, kept 
in Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, Village Administrative Officer’s report 
dated 24.11.2015 as endorsed by the Revenue Inspector, Mudaliarpet 
Firka and upon considering the reply submitted by the appellant and 
hence, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice.
12.	 Apparently, the appellant, in her reply, inter alia stated that her 
mother, after marriage, had converted to Hinduism and started to 
profess the same; the appellant is having more affinity in professing 
Hinduism and has been attending Hindu temples and offering worship 
to Hindu deities and at no point of time, she professed Christianity; 
the caste certificates issued in favour of the appellant, her father 
and brother hold good as long as they are not cancelled by the 
authority concerned; and due to political enmity with her brother, the 
said Anand gave objection for issuing Scheduled Caste community 
certificate to her; and it is the statement given by four persons viz., 
Punniyakodi, Paramadayalan, Gabriel and Dess that the appellant’s 
father and appellant belong to Adi Dravida Hindu community. 
However, the report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, 
after a detailed enquiry and through the documentary evidence 
collected, would clearly establish that the appellant’s father belonged 
to Scheduled Caste community and the appellant’s mother was a 
Christian
and their marriage was performed as per the Christian 
rituals and duly registered on 12.11.1987 by Rev.Fr.E.Showry as 
evident from the certificate issued on 15.03.2017 by the parish of 
Lourdes Shine, Villianur and thereafter, the appellant’s father had 
converted to Christianity through baptism; baptism of the appellant’s 
brother was done on 07.05.1989; and the appellant was born on 
22.11.1990 and she was baptized on 06.01.1991 at Lourdes Shrine, 
Villianur, Pondicherry within two months. Therefore, it is clear that 
the appellant was a born Christian and she would not be entitled 
to claim the certificate under Scheduled Caste Category. The 
said facts were also admitted by four persons of the same village 
viz., Alencon Karthick, Ravishankar, Prakash and Arumugam of 
Kombakkampet by stating that the appellant had undertaken baptism 
and regularly attended the church activities and her name found 
place in the Church’s baptismal register. The objector Anand in his 
letter dated 06.01.2016 had categorically averred that the appellant 
belongs to Christian religion. On the other hand, the statement of 
the villagers viz., Punniyakodi, Paramadayalam, Gabral and Dess,
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1517
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
that the appellant’s mother being Christian by birth, used to go 
to Villianur and Kompakkampet village church as she professes 
Christianity, is contrary to the statement made by the appellant that 
her mother had converted to Hinduism after marriage and started 
to profess the same. In such circumstances, the appellant ought 
to have produced something more than mere statements. When 
the facts are otherwise, she cannot simply claim that her father got 
reconverted and she and her mother converted. The appellant and 
her family, if they really intended to get themselves converted, ought 
to have done some positive act to evince such conversion rather 
than a meek claim to be practicing Hinduism. One of the methods 
of conversion is by adopting a procedure prescribed through the 
Arya Samaj. A public declaration to the effect of evincing conversion 
could also have been made. There is no documentary evidence to 
that effect and the oral evidence sought to be relied upon by the 
appellant is also against her. Even assuming that the appellant’s 
mother had converted to Hinduism after marriage, she ought not to 
have baptized her children in the church and hence, the statement 
of the appellant is untrustworthy. The certified copies of the baptism 
and extract from the register of marriage of the appellant’s parents 
at Lourdes Shrine, Villianur gathered by the Village
Administrative 
Officer, Murungapakkam Village, further disclosed that the appellant’s 
father is a converted Christian and the appellant was baptized after 
her birth. Thus, it can safely be inferred by us that the appellant is a 
Christian by religion and she does not profess Hinduism. In view of 
that, in terms of the S.C. Order, 1964, as per which, the Scheduled 
Caste community certificate can be issued only to a person who is 
professing either Hinduism Sikhism or Buddhism, the appellant is 
not entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate. 
12.1.	 However, it is not evident from records, as to how the appellant 
was issued with a Scheduled caste community certificate 
earlier. But for the requirement under the Declaration in Sl. No 
2 in the application for the post of UDC, the denova enquiry 
would not have happened. It is settled law that an illegality 
cannot be perpetuated. In this regard, it will be useful to refer 
to the following judgments of this Court, wherein it was held 
that the State was well within its power to take appropriate 
action, when it comes to its knowledge that a certificate was 
obtained by fraud.
1518
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(i)	
 State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing 
Parmar13 
“23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis 
on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of 
India provides for protective discrimination and 
reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group 
to come on the same platform as that of the forward 
community. If and when a person takes an undue 
advantage of the said beneficent provision of the 
Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation 
and other benefits provided under the Presidential 
Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not 
only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and 
substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, 
therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is 
not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect 
to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator 
in the matter.”
(ii)	  Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira14
“56. Service under the Union and the States, or for 
that matter under the instrumentalities of the State 
subserves a public purpose. These services are 
instruments of governance. Where the State embarks 
upon public employment, it is under the mandate of 
Articles 14 and 16 to follow the principle of equal 
opportunity. Affirmative action in our Constitution is 
part of the quest for substantive equality. Available 
resources and the opportunities provided in the form 
of public employment are in
contemporary times 
short of demands and needs. Hence, the procedure 
for selection, and the prescription of eligibility criteria 
has a significant public element in enabling the State 
to make a choice amongst competing claims. The 
selection of ineligible persons is a manifestation of 
a systemic failure and has a deleterious effect on 
13	
[2006] Supp. 8 SCR 105 : (2007) 1 SCC 80 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 5 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1130 
14	
[2017] 11 SCR 271 : (2017) 8 SCC 670 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 708 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 715
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1519
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
good governance. Firstly, selection of a person who 
is not eligible allows someone who is ineligible to 
gain access to scarce public resources. Secondly, 
the rights of eligible persons are violated since a 
person who is not eligible for the post is selected. 
Thirdly, an illegality is perpetrated by bestowing 
benefits upon an imposter undeservingly. These 
effects upon good governance find a similar echo 
when a person who does not belong to a reserved 
category passes of as a member of that category 
and obtains admission to an educational institution. 
Those for whom the Constitution has made special 
provisions are as a result ousted when an imposter 
who does not belong to a reserved category is 
selected. The fraud on the Constitution precisely 
lies in this. Such a consequence must be avoided 
and stringent steps be taken by the Court to ensure 
that unjust claims of imposters are not protected in 
the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142. 
The nation cannot live on a lie. Courts play a vital 
institutional role in preserving the rule of law. The 
judicial process should not be allowed to be utilised 
to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve the 
benefits which have accrued to an imposter on 
the specious plea of equity. Once the legislature 
has stepped in, by enacting Maharashtra Act 23 
of 2001, the power under Article 142 should not 
be exercised to
defeat legislative prescription. The 
Constitution Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, 
(2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117] spoke on 
28-11-2000. The State law has been enforced from 
18-10-2001. Judicial directions must be consistent 
with law. Several decisions of two-Judge Benches 
noticed earlier, failed to take note of Maharashtra 
Act 23 of 2001. The directions which were issued 
under Article 142 were on the erroneous inarticulate 
premise that the area was unregulated by statute. 
Shalini [Shalini v. New English High School Assn., 
(2013) 16 SCC 526 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265] 
noted the statute but misconstrued it.”
1520
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
13.	 In the case on hand, the field verification clearly revealed the registration 
of the marriage of the parents of the appellant under the Indian Christian 
Marriage Act, 1872, the baptism of the appellant and her brother and 
also the fact that they had been regularly attending the church. Any 
interference with such findings of fact is unwarranted unless the findings 
are perverse so as to shock the conscience of the Court. Therefore, 
we are of the opinion that the respondent authorities, after a thorough 
enquiry and having analysed the documentary evidence, reached the 
right conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the Scheduled 
Caste Community Certificate and accordingly, the matter was referred 
to the District Committee for cancellation of the community certificate 
already issued to her. The High Court also, upon due consideration 
of the facts and circumstances of the case and legal position, was 
correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
14.	 Though a feeble argument was made by the learned counsel for the 
appellant that the baptism was done when the appellant was less 
than three months old, the same does not inspire our confidence as 
she did not make any attempt to cancel the registration of baptism 
nor she filed any declaratory suit in this regard. The decisions of this 
Court referred to on the side of the appellant, are of no assistance 
to the appellant, as the same
are factually distinguishable and dealt 
with by this Court on different aspects. In the present case, the 
appellant was a born Christian and could not be associated with any 
caste. In any case, upon conversion to Christianity, one loses her 
caste and cannot be identified by it. As the factum of reconversion 
is disputed, there must be more than a mere claim. The conversion 
had not happened by any ceremony or through Arya Samaj. No 
public declaration was effected. There is nothing on record to show 
that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the 
contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes 
Christianity. As noticed above, the evidence on hand is also against 
the appellant. Therefore, the contention raised on the side of the 
appellant that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion 
and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, is unsustainable in 
the facts of the case. On this aspect, it would be useful to refer to 
the judgment of this Court in S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam,15 in 
which, it was observed as under:
15	
[1969] 1 SCR 254 : 1968 SCC OnLine SC 261 : (1969) 1 SCJ 738 : AIR 1969 SC 101
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1521
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
“16. We agree with the High Court that, when the appellant 
embraced Christianity in 1949, he lost the membership of 
the Adi Dravida Hindu caste. The Christian religion does 
not recognise any caste classifications. All Christians are 
treated as equals and there is no distinction between 
one Christian and another of the type that is recognised 
between members of different castes belonging to Hindu 
religion. In fact, caste system prevails only amongst 
Hindus or possibly in some religions closely allied to the 
Hindu religion like Sikhism. Christianity is prevalent not 
only in India but almost all over the world and nowhere 
does Christianity recognise caste division. The tenets of 
Christianity militate against persons professing Christian 
faith being divided or discriminated on the basis of any such 
classification as the caste system. It must, therefore, be 
held that, when the appellant got converted to Christianity 
in 1949, he ceased to belong to the Adi Dradiva caste.
17. In this connection, we may take notice of a decision of 
the Madras High Court in G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran, 
Additional Secretary to Government Public (Elections) 
Department, Madras [AIR 1952 Mad 474] where that 
Court held:
“Christianity and Islam are religions prevalent 
not only in India but also in other countries in 
the world. We know that in other countries these 
religions do not
recognise a system of castes as 
an integral part of their creed or tenets.”
Attention of that Court was drawn to the fact that there 
were several cases in which a member of one of the 
lower castes, who had been converted to Christianity, 
had continued not only to consider himself as still being a 
member of the caste, but had also been considered so by 
other members of the caste who had not been converted. 
Dealing with this aspect, the Court held:
“This is somewhat analogous to cases in which 
even after conversion certain families and 
groups continue to be governed by the law by 
which they were governed before they became
1522
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
converts. But these are all cases of exception 
and the general rule is conversion operates as 
an expulsion from the caste; in other words, a 
convert ceases to have any caste.”
In the present case, therefore, we agree with the finding 
of the High Court that the appellant, on conversion to 
Christianity, ceased to belong to the Adi Dravida caste and, 
consequently, the burden lay on the appellant to establish 
that, on his reverting to the Hindu religion by professing it 
again, he also became once again a member of the Adi 
Dravida Hindu caste.
……
21. Almost all these cases laid down the principle that, on 
reconversion to Hinduism, a person can become a member 
of the same caste in which he was born and to which he 
belonged before having been converted to another religion. 
The main basis of the decisions is that, if the members 
of the caste accept the reconversion of a person as a 
member, it should be held that he does become a member 
of that caste, even though he may have lost membership 
of that caste on conversion to another religion. In the 
present case, we do not consider it necessary to express 
any opinion on the general question whether, if a person 
is born in a particular caste and is converted to another 
religion as a result of which he loses the membership of 
that caste, he can again become a member of that caste 
on reconversion to Hinduism. That is a question which 
may have to be decided in any
of the appeals that may 
be brought to this Court from the judgments of the Andhra 
Pradesh and the Madras High Courts referred to above. 
So far as the present case is concerned, we consider that, 
even if it be assumed that a reconvert can resume the 
membership of his previous caste, the facts established in 
the present case do not show that the appellant succeeded 
in doing so. All these cases proceed on the basis that, 
in order to resume membership of his previous caste, 
the person must be reconverted to the Hindu religion 
and must also be accepted by the caste in general as a
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1523
C. Selvarani v. 
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
member after reconversion. We do not think it necessary 
to refer to specific sentences where these principles have 
been relied upon in these various judgments. It is, in our 
opinion, enough to take notice of the decision in Goona 
Durgaprasada Rao alias Pedaa Babu, where these two 
aspects were emphasised by a Full Bench of the Madras 
High Court. In that case, the first question that arose was 
whether a person could become a convert to Hinduism 
without going through a formal ceremony of purification. It 
was held that no proof of any particular ceremonial having 
been observed was required. Varadachariar, J., held that 
when on the facts it appears that a man did change his 
religion and was accepted by his co-religionists as having 
changed his religion, and lived, died and was cremated 
in that religion, the absence of some formality should not 
negative what is an actual fact. Considering the question 
of entry into the caste, Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., held 
that, in matters affecting the well-being or composition of 
a caste, the caste itself is the supreme Judge. It was on 
this principle that a reconvert to Hinduism could become 
a member of the caste, if the caste itself as the supreme 
Judge accepted him as a full member of it. In the appeal 
before us, we find that the appellant has not given evidence 
to satisfy these requirements in order to establish that he
did become a member of Adi Dravida Hindu caste by the 
time of general elections in 1967.”
15.	 At this juncture, we may observe that India is a secular country. Every 
citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of their choice as 
guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. One converts to a 
different religion, when he/she is genuinely inspired by its principles, 
tenets and spiritual thoughts. However, if the purpose of conversion 
is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual 
belief on the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the 
extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motive 
will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation. In the 
instant case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the 
appellant professes Christianity and actively practices the faith by 
attending church regularly. Despite the same, she claims to be a 
Hindu and seeks for Scheduled Caste community certificate for the
1524
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
purpose of employment. Such a dual claim made by her is untenable 
and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism. 
Therefore, the conferment of Scheduled caste communal status to 
the appellant, who is a Christian by religion, but claims to be still 
embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing reservation in 
employment, would go against the very object of reservation and 
would amount to fraud on the Constitution.
16.	 For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. However, there is no 
order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan