This Regular First Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.7457/2018 dated 03.07.2019 by the Court of XIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City, thereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the caste of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaint is rejected.

2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, rank of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs. The 1st plaintiff is Hindu by birth and his name was Veerapandi A., and he solemnized marriage with the 2nd plaintiff who was a Muslim by religion and after the marriage, the 1st plaintiff embraced Islam religion by changing his name as Vasim Khan. The 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are two children of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The 3rd -4- NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 plaintiff born on 11.05.2007 and 4th plaintiff born on 04.01.2009.

4. The plaintiff wanted to revert back to their mother religion and accordingly, it is stated that all the plaintiffs underwent Shuddhi ceremony at Arya Samaj, Bengaluru on 24.04.2015 and embraced Hinduism. After reconverting to Hinduism, the old name of 1st plaintiff was regained as Veerapandi A. from Vasim Khan. The 2nd plaintiff's name was changed as Meenakshi from Asma. The name of 3rd plaintiff was not changed and retained the same as Kumari. Simran. The 4th plaintiff's name was changed to Harshit Pandi.V from Hussain.

5. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are studying at primary school in the 4th defendant's school. At the time of admission to the school with the 4th respondent, the names of 3rd and 4th respondents were given as Simran and Hussain and parents name as Vasim and Asma and their religion as Muslim. After undergoing Shuddhi ceremony and once -5- NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 again embracing Hindu religion, the 1st plaintiff being father of 3rd and 4th plaintiffs has given representations to the defendants No.3 and 4 to change in the school records, the names of plaintiff No.4 from Hussain to Harshit Pandi.V and changed parents name Veerapandi A., and Meenakshi respectively and also sought for change of religion from Muslim to Hindu. But the defendants have not taken any steps to honour the request made by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.3311/2016 before the Civil Court and the Civil Court has decreed the suit on 21.10.2016, but defendants have not honoured the decree passed in O.S.No.3311/2016. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed Ex.P.No.2974/2017. The defendants are stating that there is no mentioning of the caste of the plaintiff and the mother tongue in the decree in O.S.No.3311/2016. Therefore, the said decree is not implemented/executed.

6. The plaintiffs submitted that due to inadvertence, they have omitted to mention their caste as -6- NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 Thevar caste and mother tongue as Tamil in the prayer of O.S.No.3311/2016. Therefore, the plaintiffs with an intention to file suit have sent statutory notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ' CPC ') and stating that the cause of action arouse on 02.01.2017, when the defendants refused to implement the Court decree, filed the suit for declaration to declare the following reliefs:

7. Defendant No.3 has filed the written statement. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 have adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.3. Defendant No.3, in the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 written statement has contended that as per the circular issued by the Commissioner of the Education department, there is no provision for change of name, caste and religion. On this ground also the suit is liable to be dismissed. It if further contended that plaintiffs can approach the District Caste Verification Committee for change of caste/religion and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare caste/religion. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed preliminary issue to consider the suit with regard to jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which reads as follows:

9. The trial Court after considering various judgments of Hon'ble Courts, this Court and of other High Courts, has answered the preliminary issue as negative by rejecting the plaint and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs -8- NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 by holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the caste of the plaintiffs.

10. Being aggrieved the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal.

Grounds raised in the Appeal:

11. The plaintiffs have preferred the above Regular First Appeal on the grounds that this Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s Varadashankar Chinnappa Javalgi1 that the civil court has jurisdiction to declare the caste of any person. Hence, the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the suit.

12. Further raised the ground that the trial Court on which placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court are on a different set of facts and circumstances and are not applicable in the present case. Therefore, has erroneously dismissed the suit. Further, even the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 1 ILR 1996 KAR 3693 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 Tribes and other Backward classes (Reservation in Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to 'The Act of 1990' for short) and amendment made to it do not oust jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the said Act does not say that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the caste of the person. Besides, the declaration given by Civil Court will not amount to certificate, but at the most, it is piece of evidence to be considered by the District Caste Verification/Scrutiny Committee in issuing certificate. Therefore, the power and jurisdiction of Civil Court is not ousted by the above said enactment. Therefore, on these grounds, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remand the case to the trial Court to consider the suit afresh on merits after receiving evidence.

13. Upon issuance of notice to the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General represented the respondents.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019

14. Heard the argument from both sides and perused the materials on record.

Submission of counsel for appellants/plaintiffs:

15. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that originally the plaintiff is belonging to Thevar caste and the mother tongue is Tamil. Just because they converted into another religion of Muslim, that cannot defeat the right of the plaintiffs to make claim of their original caste and their mother tongue after reconversion to Hinduism.

16. Further submitted that, in the present case, the plaintiffs are not claiming any caste benefits but they want to identify themselves belonging to a Thevar caste/community and to retain their mother tongue as Tamil. Therefore, identity of a person what if he is on birth and mother tongue is his fundamental right and therefore, after reconversion to Hinduism, the plaintiffs have exercised their legitimate right of being identified with their community and mother tongue as Tamil. Therefore,

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 when their eclipse after conversion to another religion, till the date of reconversion to Hinduism, that is only a shadow created on the right of the plaintiffs but soon after reconverting to Hinduism, then it is their right to be identified with his original community and with mother tongue and this civil right of the plaintiffs cannot be taken away by any other statute or rules. Therefore, the suit is very much maintainable as per Section 9 of CPC. But the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit as not maintainable is not correct. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal.

17. The learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court and fairly submitted that in all the decisions, it is held with regard to the fact that when plaintiffs are claiming benefit under the reservation and therefore, in those contexts it was held that the suit filed in this regard is not maintainable. But in the present case, the facts and circumstances are different that the plaintiffs

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 are exercising their civil rights of making identification with their community and a mother tongue. Therefore, made distinguishment of the following relied judgments with the facts and circumstances in the case of plaintiffs in this suit. The following are the judgments:

AIR 1996 SC 1182. ( S. Swvigaradoss Case) v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REP., BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS V/S KUMARI SHILPA SHRISHAIL BARAGADAGI AND ANOTHER- ILR 2014 KAR 5389. (Kumari Shilpa Case) vi. KUMARI MADHURI PATIL AND ANOTHER V/S ADDL . COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS- (1994) 6 SCC 241. ( Kumari Madhuri Patil Case) vii. DAYARAM V/S SUDHIR BATHAM AND OTHERS-

(2012) 1 SCC 333. ( Dayaram Case) viii. K.P. MANU V/S CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE- (2015) 4 SCC 1. (K.P. Manu Case)

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 ix. HARENDRA CHANDRA NATH AND OTHERS V/S BIJOY KRISHNA NATH AND OTHERS- AIR 1993 GAUHATI 52. ( Harendra Chandra Case)

18. Therefore, the learned counsel for plaintiffs/appellants prays to allow the appeal by holding that the suit is maintainable and prays to remand the case to trial Court for trying the suit.

Submission of Additional Advocate General:

19. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General Sri. Santhosh S. Gogi vehemently submitted that the very relief of plaintiff in the suit is for declaration to declare that the plaintiff belongs to Thevar caste. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable as it is expressively barred by the Act of 1990 and also as amended by the Karnataka Act No.42/2024.

20. It is further argument by the learned Additional Advocate General that for declaration of caste power is vested with the District Caste Verification/Scrutiny Committee as per provisions of the Act of 1990 and the

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 power vested only with the Verification Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the powers of the Civil Court are expressly taken out and hence, the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 9 of CPC. He also places reliance on the above said judgments, as placed on by the counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. Therefore, it is submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and it is correctly held by the trial Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

21. Having heard arguments by both sides, the points that arise for consideration is as follows:

22. In the present suit, the plaintiffs have pleaded in the plaint that 1st plaintiff is a Hindu by birth and his name was Veerapandi A., and he had married plaintiff No.2 who was a Mulsim by religion by name Asma. After marriage, plaintiff No.1 embraced Islam religion by changing his name to Vasim Khan. In the wedlock between plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, they are blessed with children/plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 namely Simran and Hussain. After some time, the 1st plaintiff thought that for his better future prospects he wanted to revert back to his mother religion and accordingly after undergoing Shuddhi ceremony, all the plaintiffs have reconverted and embraced Hinduism. After reconversion to Hinduism, 1st plaintiff has reclaimed his name as Veerapandi A., and 2nd plaintiff changed her name as Smt.Meenakshi. Plaintiff No.3 continued the same, but the plaintiff No.4 was changed his name as Harshit Pandi V. Both the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are minors.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019

23. After reconverting to Hinduism, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 approached the school authorities to change their names children plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and their mother tongue as Tamil and also to mention their caste as Thevar in the school records, but defendant Nos.2 to 4/school authorities have not changed as per request made by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.3311/2016 and the said suit came to be decreed on 21.10.2016. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have not complied decree passed in O.S.No.3311/2016. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed Execution Petition which is numbered as E.P.No.2974/2017, but the said execution petition is not enforced as there is no mention of the caste and mother tongue of the plaintiff in the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3311/2016. Therefore, decree in O.S.No.3311/2016 is not complied with. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed present suit seeking declaration that to include the caste of the plaintiffs as Thevar and mother tongue as Tamil and issue mandatory injunction to mention their caste as Thevar and mother tongue as Tamil

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 of the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 in all school records just to identify themselves by Thevar community and mother tongue Tamil.

24. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issue:

25. The Trial Court has answered the said issue in the negative holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the caste of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaint is rejected. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

26. Here, the entire claim of the plaintiffs is to include their caste as Thevar and mother tongue as Tamil in the school records. The plaintiffs have not asked for declaration to declare that they are belonging to Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes or Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to 'SC or ST or OBC' for short).

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019

27. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they belonging to Tamilnadu State and for livelihood purpose they came to Karnataka and changed their religion from Hinduism to Islam and then thereafter they have reconverted to Hinduism. In this way, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in India every person is recognized by birth with some particular caste/community and religion. Therefore, the plaintiffs who are born in Tamilnadu State, their mother tongue is Tamil. Just because they were converted to Islam that does not diminish original identity as Thevar caste and mother tongue as Tamil and therefore, after reconversion quite naturally he regained the position as belonging to the same caste and the mother tongue is Tamil and that is what the plaintiffs want to get the particulars to be changed in the school records. Therefore, submitted that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they want declaration that their caste is coming under SC or ST or OBC, but simply their prayer is for declaration that they belong to Thevar caste as they originally belonged to. Therefore, in

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 this regard, when defendant Nos.3 and 4 have refused to enter their caste and mother tongue as Tamil in the school records that creates havoc, hampering future prospects of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, therefore, for exercising this civil right, they approached the Civil Court by filing suit, which is maintainable as per Section 9 of CPC.

28. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the above cited judgments are pertaining to the issue regarding declaration of caste belonging to SC or ST or OBC. But in the present case, the plaintiff is not claiming relief that his caste belongs to particular SC or ST or OBC category. Therefore, difference in the factual matrix in the above cited cases and in the present case, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, prays to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

29. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the defendants/respondents State submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction for declaring that a particular person belonged to SC or ST or OBC. As per the

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 Act of 1990, for declaration of caste, suit is not maintainable and this is rightly considered by the Trial Court. Therefore, he places reliance on the above cited judgments which held that filing of suit in this regard is expressly barred under Section 9 of CPC. Therefore, he justified the order passed by the Trial Court.

30. Upon considering the plaint averments, there is no pleading or mentioning that the plaintiffs are claiming benefit under the SC or ST or OBC. But case of the plaintiffs is that originally they belong to Thevar community and their mother tongue is Tamil and therefore, after reconverting to Hinduism their original status of particular community and mother tongue be regained and therefore, filed suit for entering these particulars in the school records. In the plaint the plaintiffs have not pleaded that they are belonging to SC or ST or OBC categories. Therefore, in this regard, the judgments cited by both the sides are to be considered.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. GURUSWAMY's2 case (supra) at paragraph No.3 has held as follows:

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 same was disbelieved by the District Collector before cancellation. It is a self-serving document. The authority had, therefore, given an opportunity to the respondent to establish his status and found that the certificate previously obtained was wrong and illegal. Accordingly, he cancelled the certificate given to the respondent on 23-1-1971. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the guidelines had been given by the Collector in the manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted and the synonyms are to be taken and in pursuance thereof, the Revenue Division Officer granted him the certificate. We find that the stand taken is not correct. The guidelines are only to identify the persons and not to give a declaration as to which community comes under a particular entry of the Presidential Notification. It is then contended that the respondent has been given the right to enjoy the status right from 1971 and, therefore, the principle of estoppel applies to him. We find that it has no force. It is a fraud played on the Constitution. A person who plays fraud and obtains a false certificate cannot plead estoppel. The principle of estoppel arises only when a lawful promise was made and acted upon to his detriment; the party making promise is estopped to resile from the promise. In this case, the principle of estoppel is inapplicable because there is no promise made by the State that the State would protect perpetration of fraud defeating the constitutional objective; no promise was made that his false certificate will be respected and accepted by the State. On the other hand, he is liable for prosecution. The courts would not lend

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 assistance to perpetrate fraud on the Constitution and he cannot be allowed to get the benefit of the fraudulent certificate obtained from the authorities. The declaration issued by the courts below is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction."

32. The facts in cited case are that the respondent was studying in the school, he was described as a member of "Totti" community. The Presidential Notification issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution of India read with Article 366(24) of the Constitution notifies "Thotti" to be a Scheduled Caste as Item No.67 of the Presidential Notification. Subsequently, in 1970, the respondent had obtained a certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer indicating him to be "Kattunaicken" as Item No.9 of the list of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Tamilnadu issued by the President under Article 342(1) read with Article 366(25) of the Constitution. Subsequently, the respondent had applied for permanent certificate; on that basis an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the respondent was not a Scheduled Tribe but is a Scheduled caste. Accordingly, the certificate came to be cancelled.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 Impugning the said cancellation, the respondent filed a civil suit for declaration that he is "Kattunaicken" as a Scheduled Tribe. In this regard the suit filed by the respondent is decreed and affirmed by the High Court of Madras. In these factual matrixes, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the suit is not maintainable as per Section 9 of CPC. But in the present case, the plaintiffs are not claiming change of caste and questioning any order of District Caste Verification/Scrutiny Committee or any order. Therefore, due to difference in factual matrix in the above stated case and in the present case, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case.

33. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SRISH KUMAR's3 case (supra) at paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17, 21 and 22 has held follows:

21. Reservation has become important in view of the increasing competition in society and that probably had led to the anxiety of the appellant and the people in his community to claim

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 reservation. As pointed out by the Constitution Bench judgments which we have referred to above, the basis on which inclusion into or exclusion from the enumerated list made under Art. 342 is contemplated is the changing economic, educational and other situations of the members of any particular tribe. Keeping that in view the State Government may initiate appropriate proposals for modification in case it is satisfied and after appropriate enquiry if the authorities are satisfied that the claim is genuine and tenable, amendment may be undertaken as provided by the Constitution.

22. This Court has indicated in some of the judgments referred to above that as a result of the detailed enquiry made as to the economic status, the level of education and the necessity of protection, inclusion into or exclusion from the Order is made. The material relating to the Laskar tribe in 1930 or 1941 may not have been considered sufficient before the respective Orders were made for including the Laskars, said to have been covered by the description of Deshi Tripura. Therefore, even if historically this tribe was covered by the general description of Tripura, that by itself may not justify its inclusion in the Order as a scheduled tribe. That is an additional feature which has weighed with us in taking our decision not to interfere in the matter."

34. The facts in the cited case are that the appellant is a resident of Tripura State and claims to belong to the Laskar Community, which is recognized as a

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 Scheduled Tribe in the erstwhile State of Tripura. Members of the Laskar Community freely enjoyed all the benefits available to members of the Scheduled Tribes until in 1976. When the State Government decided to treat members of that community as not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and issued instructions to the State Authorities to implement this decision. Therefore, the appellant filed writ petition before the Guwahati High Court, requesting to be recognized as belonging to Scheduled Tribe Community since he is a member of Laskar community. The contention of the State Government was that Laskar Community was not a Scheduled Tribe, in this friction the dispute went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there was no issue regarding maintainability of the suit in the aforementioned judgment. Thus, given the distinguishable features of the facts in the present case, the above decision is not applicable in the present case.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019

35. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. SWVIGARADOSS's4 case (supra) at paragraph No.8 has held as follows:

36. The facts in the cited case are that the petitioner's parents were got converted to Christian religion prior to his birth. The petitioner was born in the Christian religion, but later, for the purpose of claiming reservations, he stated that he belonged to Adi-Dravida community. Also, the petitioner married a Christian girl. By claiming the status as Adi-Dravida, he got employment in the Government. Therefore, the Government issued a notice for initiation of proceedings, then the petitioner has filed suit. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the suit, in this context, was not maintainable under Section 9 of CPC. Therefore, since the petitioner was a Christian born to Christian parents and claimed his caste as Adi-Dravida, therefore, his prayer was turned down as the suit is not maintainable. In view of this difference in factual matrix between the cited case and in the present case, the above cited decision is not applicable. In the present case the

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 plaintiffs are not claiming that they belong to SC or ST or OBC. What simply the prayer of the petitioner is that they belong to Thevar caste. Whether they belong to Thevar caste or not is the subject matter for adjudication in the suit. The plaintiffs may be able or may not be able to prove their caste as Thevar and this disputed fact is purely matter of adjudication before the Civil Court. The plaintiffs in the present suit have not claimed their caste belong to SC or ST or OBC. Therefore, this difference in the factual matrix makes the above said judgment is not applicable in the present case.

37. Further, this Court in KUMARI SHILPA's5 case (supra) has discussed that respondent claimed that she belong to Hindu Hatagar a backward community, but wrongly entered in the school records as Hingu Lingayat which is a forward caste; therefore, filed suit; hence it was held that the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the facts in the cited case are that in the school records the caste is 5 ILR 2014 KAR 5389

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 wrongly mentioned as Hindu Lingayat, but she was claiming belong to Hindu Hatagar community. Under these circumstances it was held that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 9 of the CPC.

38. Here in the present case, the plaintiffs have not claimed that they are belonging to SC or ST or OBC. It is simple prayer in the suit to enter in school records as they belong to Thevar Caste based on reconversion to Hinduism. Here in the present case, there is no change of caste claimed by the plaintiffs therefore, difference in the factual matrix in the above cited case and in the present case therefore, the above said judgment is not applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances.

39. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in KUMARI MADHURI PATIL's6 case (supra), were pleased to issue guidelines at paragraph No.13, which is held as follows:

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:

Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.

2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.

3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.

4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high-er in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.

5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019

6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.

7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019

8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.

9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to- day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.

10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.

11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.

13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 Bench but subject to special leave under Article

14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.

15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post."

40. In this cited case, the facts are that the appellant had fraudulently obtained Schedule Tribe certificate by approaching proper authority. Later on during her fag end of academic carrier in completion of her medical course, it was found that the said obtaining of certificate is by way of fraudulent means and was about to

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 complete her medical course and to appear in the examination. But her younger sister was not given the said benefit. It was held that the appellant to which caste she claimed to be belong to 'Koli' is coming within the category as Other Backward Classes but not Scheduled Tribe as per Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950. Therefore, in the cited case, it was the subject matter that the appellant had fraudulently obtained certificate claiming to belonging to Scheduled Tribe category but virtually she belongs to Other Backward Classes and obtained seat in medical course.

41. In this context, the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued guidelines as above cited. But in the present case as above discussed, the facts and circumstances are entirely different from this cited case. Here, the plaintiff is not claiming any certificate that the Thevar caste belongs to either SC or ST or OBC. The prayer in the plaint is different. Therefore, having difference in factual matrix, the above cited judgment is not applicable on behalf of

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 contention taken by the defendant-State and Educational Department.

42. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the DAYARAM's7 case (supra), by following the directions issued in KUMARI MADHURI PATIL's 6 case (supra), it was held that scheme laid down in KUMARI MADHURI PATIL's6 case (supra) to continue in force till replaced by suitable legislature. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment, in the context of subject matter of claiming reservation on a particular caste, laid down principle of law but in the present case on hand, the question is exercising the civil right of plaintiff after reconversion to Hinduism, once again claiming to be belonging to Thevar caste.

43. In the present case on hand, the plaintiffs are not claiming benefit of either SC or ST or OBC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in DAYARAM's7 case (supra) held for declaration of particular caste belongs to SC or ST or OBC, the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, this makes 7 (2012) 1 SCC 333

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 difference in the factual matrix in the above cited case and in the present case. Therefore, the above said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances and grounds raised in this appeal. It was laid down in KUMARI MADHURI PATIL's6 case (supra) and in DAYARAM's7 case (supra)against the order passed by the District Caste Verification/Scrutiny Committee of caste, a civil suit is not maintainable as per Section 9 of the CPC. Here, in the present case, there is no order of District Caste Verification/Scrutiny Committee against the plaintiffs. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the present case to say that the suit filed is not maintainable as per Section 9 of CPC.

44. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.P. MANU's8 case (supra), while dealing with the case that while a person being a Hindu converted to another religion and on reconversion to Hindu religion, then, during the eclipse of original Hindu caste on conversion to another religion, 8 (2015) 4 SCC 1

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 what are the principles applicable are stated at paragraph Nos.47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 by issuing guidelines as follows:

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 "42. ... 'Per incuriam' are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong."

At a subsequent stage of the said authority, it has been held that: (A.R. Antulay case, SCC p. 654, para

47) "47. ... It is a settled rule that if a decision has been given per incuriam the court can ignore it."

49. In Union of India v. R.P. Singh , the Court observed thus: (SCC p. 348, para 19) "19. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , while dealing with the issue of 'per incuriam', a two-Judge Bench, after referring to the dictum in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. and certain passages from Halsbury's Laws of England and Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, had ruled thus: (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre case29, SCC p. 743, para 138) '138. The analysis of English and Indian law clearly leads to the irresistible conclusion that not only the judgment of a larger strength is binding on a judgment of smaller strength but the judgment of a coequal strength is also binding on a Bench of Judges of coequal strength. In the instant case, judgments mentioned in paras 124 and 125 are by two or three Judges of this Court. These judgments have clearly ignored a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Sibbia case which has comprehensively dealt with all the facets of anticipatory bail enumerated under Section 438 CrPC. Consequently, the judgments mentioned in paras 124 and 125 of this judgment are per incuriam."

50. Tested on the aforesaid principles, it can safely be concluded that the judgment in S. Swvigaradoss,

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 as far as the second principle is concerned, is per incuriam.

51. In the instant case, the appellant got married to a Christian lady and that has been held against him. It has also been opined that he could not produce any evidence to show that he has been accepted by the community for leading the life of a Hindu. As far as the marriage and leading of Hindu life are concerned, we are of the convinced opinion that, in the instant case, it really cannot be allowed to make any difference. The community which is a recognised organisation by the State Government has granted the certificate in categorical terms in favour of the appellant. It is the community which has the final say as far as acceptance is concerned, for it accepts the person, on reconversion, and takes him within its fold. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the appellant after reconversion had come within the fold of the community and thereby became a member of the Scheduled Caste. Had the community expelled him the matter would have been different. The acceptance is in continuum. Ergo, the reasonings ascribed by the Scrutiny Committee which have been concurred with by the High Court are wholly unsustainable."

45. The facts in the cited case are that the appellant's great grandfather belongs to 'Hindu Pulaya' community. His son Chothi embraced Christianity and accepted a new name, i.e., Varghese who married Mariam who originally belonged to 'Hindu Ezhava' and later on

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 converted to Christianity. From the wedlock, three sons namely, Varghese, Yohannan and Paulose were born. Paulose is father of the appellant, got married to Kunjamma who was a Christian. The appellant was born on 03.01.1960. Sometime in the year 1984, at the age of 24 converted himself to Hindu religion and changed his name that of K.P. Manu. On the basis of the conversion, he applied for a caste certificate to Akhila Bharata Ayyappa Seva Sangham. After conversion, the appellant had obtained certificate from the community concerned on 05.02.1984. Then, the Tahasildar who was authorised to issue the caste certificate, had issued the necessary caste certificate. Then, one Sri. Kumar Menon invoked jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee challenging the grant of caste certificate to the appellant. The Scrutiny Committee had cancelled the said caste certificate. Therefore, on the basis of the report of Scrutiny Committee, the State Government took action and directed the employer of the appellant to remove him from service and recover a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 salary paid to him. Then, the case went to High Court and High Court has upheld the report of the Scrutiny Committee and decision taken for removal of the appellant from service. In this facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court had issued directions as above stated.

46. This Court has read over all the judgments and considered principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. In the case on hand, the question is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for seeking declaration that to declare the caste as Thevar caste and mother tongue as Tamil is maintainable in the suit, is to be considered. In the present case, the plaintiffs have not sought for any benefits of belonging to SC or ST or OBC. It is not a prayer of the plaintiffs that to declare his caste belongs to SC or ST or OBC. What the plaintiffs simply filed a suit that he originally belong to Hindu religion recognized by caste of Thevar and later on, converted to Islam religion and changed his name. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have once again got reconverted to Hinduism

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 after undergoing procedure of Shuddhi ceremony as it is prevailed under the Hindu religion. Therefore, what endeavour the plaintiff is making that by claiming that originally he was belonging to Thevar community and therefore, for identification purpose with the community, he desires to enter the name of caste in school records as Thevar in respect of his children i.e., plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and recognize their mother tongue as Tamil.

47. Learned Additional Advocate General with reference to the Act 1990 argued that it is District Caste Verification Committee only to pass order with regard to caste or religion but not by the Civil Court. The argument of learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction for the reasons of perusing the object and reasons and preamble of the Act, 1990.

48. The object and reasons of the Act, 1990 is as follows:

49. As per the preamble, object and reasons of the Act, 1990, it is fundamental for providing reservation to the appointments on admission or posts in favour of the members of SC, ST and OBC in the State Civil Services and establishments in Public sector and admission to the Universities and to the Educational Institutions. Further, the reasons for enacting the Act, 1990 is that the members of SC, ST and OBCs' are not adequately represented in the services or posts in the State Civil Services and establishments in public sector and among other students admitted to the universities and to the educational

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 institutions. Therefore, for giving effective representations to SC, ST and OBC as per aspirations of Constitution of India for providing reservation, this Act, 1990 is enacted. Therefore, the sum and substance of enacting the Act, 1990 is to provide reservations to SC, ST and OBCs. Therefore, under this Act, 1990, the Commissioner has issued circulars.

50. But, in the present case, the plaintiffs are not claiming any reservations or benefits for claiming reservations or admission in any universities etc.,. Simply what the plaintiffs are seeking is declaration that they belong to Thevar caste and their mother tongue is Tamil. Therefore, to include in the school records, while admitting plaintiffs Nos.3 and 4 as their caste is Thevar and mother tongue is Tamil. Except for this purpose, there is no pleading or prayer in the suit. Therefore, in this regard, the defendants have failed to understand the whole scheme of suit framed by the plaintiffs. Even, still the District Caste Verification Committee will have power to make verification and scrutiny of the caste of the plaintiffs in case if plaintiffs make claim reservations on their caste. What the prayer in the suit is to recognition of

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 plaintiffs with their community/caste as Thevar and mother tongue is Tamil. In future if plaintiffs No.3 and 4 make claim of any reservation on the basis of their caste, then the District Caste Verification Committee shall have power in this regard, but at this stage itself scuttling the civil right of the plaintiffs declining the prayer of the plaintiffs at threshold is violation of fundamental right of the plaintiffs not only civil rights. The plaintiffs have filed suit for exercising their civil right to make identification of themselves with their caste/community in which community they are born. It is not at the hands of the plaintiffs to choose their caste/community by birth, but it is right of plaintiffs to recognize themselves to a particular caste/community according to their birth. Therefore, in this regard, the Trial Court has misconceived itself in rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit. It is still duty cast on the plaintiffs to prove that they belong to Thevar caste/community and their mother tongue is Tamil, but before that rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit, is violation of right of the plaintiffs.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019

51. In India, every person born to parents belongs to certain caste or community as per their patents caste/community and the recognition is by birth, thus, choosing caste/community is not at the hands of the person who is born. Therefore, when the plaintiffs claiming to be his parents were belonging to Thevar community, therefore, after reconversion to Hinduism, they desired to be recognized as belonging to Thevar community and mother tongue is Tamil. This is only simple prayer made by the plaintiffs. When in this country, recognition of particular person is with caste/community, then to continue to be recognized with that particular caste or community is also his fundamental right. Therefore, for exercising this right, in order to recognize plaintiffs themselves belonging to Thevar caste has filed the suit to include their caste as Thevar caste in school records. Accordingly, sought for relief of declaration by filing the suit. The plaintiffs are not claiming in the suit in the prayer in the suit that the Thevar caste belongs to SC or ST or OBC. Whether the Thevar caste belongs to SC or ST or

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 OBC that is different domain to be examined by the District Caste Verification/Scrutiny Committee as per provision of the Act of 1990 and its allied rules. The Scrutiny Committee/Verification Committee decides the question whether the particular caste is coming within the Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes or Other Backward Classes based on the materials/evidence to be place before it.

52. In our country, no person shall be remained in a neutral, independent of any caste or community, unless, it is choice by that person to remain neutral. Therefore, in this reality in life and legal position, the defendants are mis-conceived of the fact and misinterpreting the law in this regard have erroneously contended that the suit is not maintainable. The defendants are correct if the plaintiffs are claiming the benefit of caste and are attempting to take any admission or employment on the basis of the caste. But it is the case of the plaintiffs that after reconverting to Hindu religion, by pleading that they

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 originally belong to Thevar caste and include the caste name as Thevar in the school records and the mother tongue as Tamil is the only prayer in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Thus, in this way, the suit filed is very well maintainable as per Section 9 of the CPC. In KUMARI MADHURI PATIL's6 case (supra) and in DAYARAM's7 case (supra), what is held by Hon'ble Apex Court regarding ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court as per Section 9 of CPC is against the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee/Verification Committee, the suit is not maintainable and also for claiming relief in the suit that such particular caste is coming within the category of SC or ST or OBC, the suit is not maintainable. But in the present case, the plaintiffs are claiming in the suit that they belong to Thevar caste by birth and their status as they belong to Thevar caste was eclipsed for the interregnum period after conversion to Islam religion and till reconverting to Hindu religion and after reconverting to Hindu religion, the said eclipse was removed. Hence, attained the original recognition of Thevar caste by birth.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 This is the only prayer made in the suit. Therefore, in this regard the trial Court has misconstrued the factual matrix and reality involved in the present case and in the cited case but has erroneously held that the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs according to the facts pleaded and prayer made therein is very well maintainable.

53. In the suit, it is burden on the plaintiffs to prove whether they belong to Thevar caste/community or not by producing evidence before the Civil Court in the suit. But at threshold, rejecting the plaint before deciding the suit whether they belong to Thevar caste or not is scuttling the civil rights of the plaintiffs, which is illegal. Therefore, the plaintiffs are here still to establish the fact that they belong to Thevar community and the Civil Court is yet to receive the evidence and decide the case on its merit. But before that, scuttling the civil rights of the plaintiffs is not correct by rejecting the plaint. Therefore, the order passed

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019 by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.

54. The duty of the District Caste Scrutiny/Verification Committee constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1990 comes into picture only when the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are making claim that they belong to either SC or ST or OBC. Then it is for the Scrutiny Committee/Verification Committee to make enquiry and to decide in accordance with law as per principle of law laid down by the Apex Court and as per the Act of 1990. But before that, inclusion of caste as Thevar in the school records is yet to be decided in the suit. It is burden on the plaintiffs to prove that they belong to Thevar caste and their mother tongue is Tamil.

55. Therefore, for the above discussed reasons the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and remanded to the trial Court for considering the case on its merits as per law. Hence I answer point No.2 in the affirmative.

NC: 2025:KHC:7231 RFA No. 1793 of 2019

56. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: