Disposed

Mary.J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2020WP(C)/2961/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Latin Catholic community status underlying a public appointment was challenged after longstanding official recognition. The court quashed the adverse reports and orders, holding that such status could not be withdrawn after a long lapse without sufficient proof of fraud or misrepresentation. Both writ petitions were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P18 to P20 in W.P.(C) No.2961/2018 and Ext.P26 in W.P.(C) No.21173/2019 were quashed.

Mary.J Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020/20TH AGRAHAYANA,1942 WP(C).No.2961 OF 2018(U)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MARY J., W/O JESTIN K.K, KONIKKARA HOUSE,POTTORE P.O., M.G KAVU(VIA), THRISSUR 680 581.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶10

2 DIRECTOR, BACKWARD COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF BACKWARD COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT, AYYANKALI BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR,KANAKANAGAR, VELLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.

¶11

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LANE ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA 680 003.

¶12

4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD 678 013.

¶13

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

5 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTOOR, PIN 678 101.

¶16

6 VILLAGE OFFICER, NALLEPILLY VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD 678 013.

¶17

7 SHEEBA SALETH V., W/O P.P THOMAS, PADAYATTIL VEEDU,PATTIKKADU P.O., THRISSUR 680 562.

¶18

R1-R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RASHMI K.M. R7 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.SABU PULLAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).21173/2019(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶25

FRIDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020/20TH AGRAHAYANA,1942

¶26

WP(C).No.21173 OF 2019(V)

¶27

PETITIONER:

¶28

MARY J.,W/O. JESTIN K.K., KONIKKARA HOUSE, POTTORE P.O., M.G.KAVU (VIA), THRISSUR-680 581.

¶29

BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE SMT. ALEENA NELSON

¶30

RESPONDENTS:

¶31

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶32

2 DIRECTOR, BACKWARD COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF BACKWARD COMMUNITEIS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AYYANKALIBHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, KANAKANAGAR, VELLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶33

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LANE ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA-680 003.

¶34

4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678 013.

¶35

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

5 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTOOR, PIN-678 101.

¶38

6 VILLAGE OFFICER, NALLEPILLY VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 553.

¶39

7 KERALA INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE, 673 017.

¶40

8 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE-673 017.

¶41

9 SHEEBA SALETH V., W/O. P.P.THOMAS, PADAYATTILVEEDU, PATTIKKADU P.O., THRISSUR-680 652.

¶42

R1-R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RASHMI K.M. R7 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) R9 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) R9 BY ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R9 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.SABU PULLAN

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).2961/2018(U), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

: 5 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2020

¶49

[W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019]

¶50

Though reliefs sought for in these two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner are different, the issues arising therein are the same and hence the writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of together.

¶51

In W.P.(C) No.2961/2018, the petitioner seeks to

¶52

quash Exts.P18 to P20 and to declare that the caste status of the petitioner as Latin Catholic cannot be changed by the respondents. In W.P.(C) No.21173/2019, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P26 and to direct the respondents to abstain from proceeding further on the basis of Ext.P26. The respondents will be referred to in this judgment in the order they are arrayed in W.P.(C) No.21173/2019.

¶53

The petitioner states that her father was a Latin Catholic, born and brought up in Kottayam District. He

¶54

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶55

: 6 :

¶56

migrated to Palakkad District in the late 70s. The petitioner’s father left his ancestral home and married a Hindu woman named Rajamma, who belonged to Kalari Panikkar, which is also an OBC community. The petitioner was born on 07.04.1981. The petitioner’s father was so detached from his parental family that he did not disclose much about his paternal or maternal family, to his wife or children. The petitioner's father passed away in 2013.

¶57

The petitioner was treated as belonging to Latin Catholic throughout her life. This will be evident from Exts.P8 to P17 documents produced in W.P.(C) No.21173/2019. The petitioner was included in the supplementary list of Latin Catholic for appointment as LD Typist. The 9^th respondent was placed below the petitioner in the rank list. The petitioner was appointed as LD Typist based on her seniority in the select list. As the appointment of the petitioner would mar her chance to get appointment, the 9^th ninth respondent filed a complaint dated 19.05.2017 to the District Collector. The said false complaint triggered all the reports/orders impugned

¶58

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶59

: 7 :

¶60

in these writ petitions.

¶61

By Ext.P18 report in W.P.(C) No.2961/2018, the Village Officer recommended that the issue of caste status of the petitioner be referred to the Backward Class Development Department and KIRTADS. Consequently, the Tahsildar, as per Ext.P19, referred the issue to the Commissioner of Backward Class Development Department as also to the Director of KIRTADS. As per Ext.P20, the Director of Backward Class Development Department held that the petitioner is not entitled to Latin Catholic Non-creamy Layer Certificate. By Ext.P26 report in W.P.(C) No.21173/2019, the Director of KIRTADS held that the petitioner is not entitled to community certificate of Christian Latin Catholic.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was always treated as belonging to Latin Catholic. Her father died in the year 2013. After the demise of her father, now the petitioner is being outcasted alleging that the petitioner’s father did not belong to Latin Catholic Community. In fact, the 9^th respondent is exploiting the

¶63

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶64

: 8 :

¶65

peculiar circumstances in which the petitioner is placed. The long delay on the part of the 9^th respondent in filing complaint against the petitioner is fatal and the respondents should not have acted on the basis of a belated and frivolous complaint.

¶66

The counsel for the petitioner further argued that Rule 3C of Part I KS & SSR would apply to the case and after one year of Advice Memo, appointment of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. The documents produced by the petitioner in this writ petition would amply prove the case of the petitioner that she belongs to Latin Catholic community. As regards the community of the petitioner’s father, there are ample evidence to show that the petitioner's father is a Latin Catholic and was cremated on his demise following Latin Catholic rites.

¶67

The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that KIRTADS which is an Anthropological Expert Agency under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, is incompetent to decide the community status of Latin

¶68

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶69

: 9 :

¶70

Catholics. Therefore, based on a report of KIRTADS, the petitioner cannot be outcasted from her community and terminated from service. The impugned orders are hit by Wednesbury unreasonableness due to non-application of mind. The impugned orders are therefore liable to be set aside by appropriate orders of this Court, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

¶71

The 3^rd respondent-District Collector opposed the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes (KSCBC) has entrusted KIRTADS with the task of conducting community studies for inclusion of castes in OBC category. Therefore, Ext.P26 report of the KIRTADS is legal and valid. As per Government Order dated 04.11.2010, only those who were following Latin Catholic faith prior to 1947 and their successors are eligible for getting Latin Catholic Community Certificate. In the petitioner’s case, there is no evidence to show that the father of the petitioner followed Latin Catholic faith prior to 1947. Therefore, the Latin Catholic Non-creamy Layer Certificates

¶72

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶73

: 10 :

¶74

issued to the petitioner are liable to be cancelled, contended the 3^rd respondent.

¶75

The 9^th respondent stated that the Kerala Public Service Commission published a rank list for appointment to the post of Lower Division Typist on 17.05.2012. The petitioner was included as rank No.5 under the Latin Catholic Community quota. The 9^th respondent was included as rank No.8. Rank Nos.6 and 7 relinquished their claim. Therefore, if the petitioner’s appointment is found to be irregular, the 9^th respondent will get appointment. The rank list expired on 30.08.2016.

¶76

Out of suspicion about the community of the petitioner, the 9^th respondent filed a complaint before the PSC and the District Collector requesting them to ascertain the community of the petitioner. Pending this complaint, the petitioner was appointed as LD Typist on 07.09.2016 in the Revenue Department. The 9^th respondent thereupon filed O.A. No.82/2018 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

¶77

The Tribunal has issued notice to the petitioner in the said

¶78

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶79

: 11 :

¶80

application. It was thereafter that the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.2961/2018 and obtained interim order against termination of her service.

¶81

The Public Service Commission did not verify the authenticity and claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Latin Catholic community while including her name in the rank list. The petitioner had obtained community certificate by misrepresentation. The petitioner's father was not Latin Catholic and the petitioner's mother was a Hindu. The petitioner's father was born and brought up in Nallepilli Village. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 certificate claiming that her father is Latin Catholic, contended the 9^th respondent.

¶82

The advise of the PSC was on 14.06.2016, much after the death of her father on 27.10.2013. The 9^th respondent could have made a complaint only on 14.06.2016 when the cause of action arose. The complaint therefore is not belated, contended the 9^th respondent. None of the documents produced by the petitioner would establish that the

¶83

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶84

: 12 :

¶85

petitioner's father belonged to Latin Catholic community. Unless and until the community of the father is accepted, a child cannot claim community status.

¶86

Admittedly, the petitioner's father was baptised at Bharananganam Church, which is not a Latin Catholic Church. Another sister of the petitioner was baptised at St. Anthony’s Church, Athicode, which is also not a Latin Catholic Church. The Parish Priest of St. Anthony’s Church, has given a certificate to the effect that neither the petitioner's father nor mother received Holy Communion in the said Church. In the records maintained by the Church regarding Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation and Marriage, the name and address of the parents of the petitioner are not included. The petitioner has obtained appointment by producing bogus documents. The orders impugned by the petitioner are legal and valid and hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, contended the 9^th respondent.

¶87

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned Senior Counsel

¶88

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶89

: 13 :

¶90

assisted by the counsel for the 9^th respondent.

¶91

Certain facts are undisputed in the pleadings. The petitioner's father V.T.John belonged to Kottayam District. He migrated to Palakkad District and married one Rajamma, who belonged to another OBC Hindu community. The petitioner was born out of the said wedlock. Ext.P6 document produced by the petitioner would show that the Parish Priest of St. Anthony’s Church coming under Latin Catholic Diocese of Sultanpet has certified that the petitioner's mother along with three daughters including the petitioner were residing at Athicode, which comes under the jurisdiction of St. Anthony’s Church, Athicode. Ext.P6 bears the seal of Bishop of Sultanpet, Palakkad.

¶92

Ext.P8, which is extracted from the register of baptisms maintained by the said St. Anthony’s Church would show that the petitioner was baptised at the said Church on 12.05.1993. Ext.P9 certificate issued by the Diocesan Commission for Family, Coimbatore would evidence that the petitioner, who is from Latin Catholic St. Antony’s Church,

¶93

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶94

: 14 :

¶95

Athicode, has attended the marriage preparation course held in the year 2000.

¶96

Ext.P10 certificate issued by the Parish Priest of the St. Anthony’s Church would show that the petitioner was baptised at the said Church as per the baptism records kept in the Church. Ext. P11 extract of admission register issued by the Headmaster of Government UP School, Athicode shows that the petitioner is Christian Latin Catholic. Ext.P11 was issued in the year 2012. Ext.P12 SSLC of the petitioner would also show that the petitioner's place of birth is Athicode and she belongs to Latin Catholic OBC caste.

¶97

Based on all these documents, the Village Officer concerned has issued Ext.P13 certificate dated 03.02.2009 stating that the petitioner belongs to Christian Latin Catholic community and she does not belong to the category of 'Creamy Layer'. Ext.P14 community certificate dated 09.10.2002, Ext.P15 Non-Creamy Layer Certificate dated 06.03.2010, Ext.P16 Non-Creamy Layer Certificate dated 18.02.2012 and Ext.P17 Non-creamy Layer Certificate dated

¶98

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶99

: 15 :

¶100

12.08.2016, all issued by the concerned Village Officer would also show that the petitioner has been treated as Latin Catholic and community certificates were issued to her accordingly.

¶101

The community of the petitioner has been doubted for the sole reason that she could not produce sufficient evidence to show that her father was a member of Latin Catholic community. As per Government Order dated 04.11.2010, only those persons who were of Latin Catholic faith prior to 1947 and their successors can claim community certificate of Latin Catholics. Ext.P4 is a copy of a certificate issued by St. Anthony’s Church, Athicode to the petitioner's father. In Ext.P4 Family Card issued to petitioner’s father, it has been stated that the place of baptism of petitioner’s father is ‘PARANGANAM’, which can be a case of mis-spelling for ‘Bharananganam’, a place in Kottayam District.

¶102

Ext.P5 is extract from a Register of Burials maintained by the Parish Priest of St. Antony’s Church, Athicode. Ext.P5 would show that the petitioner's father was

¶103

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶104

: 16 :

¶105

buried on 23.10.2013 at St. Antony’s Church, Athicode. These documents would prima facie show that the petitioner's father belonged to Latin Catholic faith.

¶106

However, on the basis of the complaint made by the 9^th respondent, the Village Officer submitted Ext.P18 report to the effect that on his enquiry at Athicode Lakshamveedu Colony, he learnt that the petitioner’s father migrated from Kottayam District. From the Family Card issued to the petitioner’s father, the Village Officer noted that the baptism of the petitioner's father was at Bharananganam Church, which is a Church of Syro-Malabar faith. On these premises, the Village Officer recommended that the caste status of the petitioner should be referred to Kerala Backward Class Development Department and KIRTADS.

¶107

The conclusion of the Village Officer for reference of the case to KIRTADS suffers from a patent error. Ext.P4 Family Card issued to the petitioner's father only indicates that the place of baptism of the petitioner is Bharananganm. Ext.P4 does not speak of any particular Church in

¶108

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶109

: 17 :

¶110

Bharananganam where the petitioner’s father was baptised. However, in Ext.P18 report, the Village Officer came to an erroneous assumption that Ext.P4 discloses that the Church, where the father of the petitioner was baptised, was Bharananganam Church, which belongs to Syro-Malabar faith. Such conclusion is patently erroneous.

¶111

Ext.P19 letter of the Tahsildar addressed to the Commissioner of Backward Class Development Department and to the Director of KIRTADS also suffers from the same mistake. Ext.P19 also proceeds on an assumption that the petitioner's father was baptised at Bharananganam Church, Pala belonging to Syro-Malabar sect, whereas the Family Card, on the basis of which such assumption is arrived at, does not speak of any particular Church at Bharananganam where the petitioner’s father was baptised. Ext.P20 letter of the Director of Backward Class Development Department which found that the petitioner is not entitled to Latin Catholic Non-creamy Layer Certificate, relies solely on the report of the Tahsildar for arriving at such conclusion. Ext.P20 also

¶112

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶113

: 18 :

¶114

therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

¶115

By Ext.P26 proceedings, the KIRTADS came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not eligible to get Christian Latin Catholic community certificate. The conclusion is based on the following findings:-

¶116

(1) The petitioner's father, as per family card, was baptised at Barananganam Church belonging to Syro-Malabar sect. But at the same time, enquiries revealed that there is no documentary proof to show that the petitioner's father was baptised at Barananganam Church.

¶117

(2) The petitioner's mother originally belonged to Hindu Kalari Panicker community, and was later converted into Christian religion. There are no records to show that mother’s baptism and wedding were held at St. Antony’s Church Athicode. At the same time, she was cremated in the said Church on the basis of a letter from a Roman Catholic Church at Thrissur District.

¶118

(3) The petitioner and her siblings were baptised at St. Antony’s Church, Athicode but were married to Christians of Roman Catholic denomination.

¶119

(4) As the petitioner and her siblings were baptised in the year 1993 only, the Parish Priest has opined that they cannot make a claim of belonging to Latin Catholic community till 1993.

¶120

(5) No information is available in respect of the father of the petitioner to show that he belonged to Latin Catholic community. It is the duty of the claimant to provide sufficient evidence in this regard.

¶121

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶122

: 19 :

¶123

It is based on such conclusions that the KIRTADS has found against the petitioner.

¶124

This Court is of the opinion that based on the said conclusions, the petitioner cannot be denied community status.

¶125

Firstly, the KIRTADS also fell into an error that the Family Card of the petitioner's father showed that he was baptised at Bharananganam Church. Ext.P4 Family Card only states that the petitioner's father was baptised at place Bharananganam. No name of any Church at Bharananganam has been mentioned in Ext.P4. At the same time, the KIRTADS also found that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner's father was baptised at Bharananganam Church of Roman Catholic community.

¶126

The father and mother of the petitioner were cremated at St. Antony’s Church, Athicode which is a Latin Catholic Church. Though the KIRTADS found that the petitioner's mother was cremated there on the basis of letter issued from a Roman Catholic Church of Thrissur District,

¶127

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶128

: 20 :

¶129

there is nothing to show that the said Roman Catholic Church certified that the petitioner's mother belonging to Roman Catholic faith.

¶130

The petitioner and her two siblings were baptised at Latin Catholic Church. If later they were married to persons belonging to other communities, that by itself cannot take away the community status of the petitioner and her siblings. The year of birth of the petitioner is 1981. She was baptised in Latin Catholic Church in the year 1993. The ritual of baptism may be conducted sooner or later after birth. The fact that baptism of the petitioner was after 12 years of her birth, cannot disentitle the petitioner the community status till baptism. If the petitioner's father is Latin Catholic, the petitioner would also belong to Latin Catholic community, howsoever lately may be her baptism is performed. The KIRTADS fell into an error in relying on late baptism of the petitioner, in order to ascertain petitioner's caste status.

¶131

The major reason for denying the Latin Catholic caste status to the petitioner projected by the KIRTADS is that

¶132

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶133

: 21 :

¶134

the petitioner failed to prove that her father belonged to Latin Catholic community. In this regard, it has to be noted that a Family Card was issued by a Latin Catholic Church to the petitioner's father. The petitioner was born in the year 1981. She was admitted in a Government School in the year 1986, where her parents described her community status as Latin Catholic OBC. The petitioner as a primary and secondary student continued to be treated as belonging to Latin Catholic. The SSLC certificate issued to the petitioner also describes the petitioner as Latin Catholic OBC. On the basis of enquiries made by Revenue Authorities, the petitioner was issued Exts.P13 to Ext.P17 certificates certifying that the petitioner belongs to Latin Catholic community.

¶135

Thus, it is clear that from her very birth till the respondents passed the impugned orders in the year 2018 and 2019, there was no doubt in the mind of any person or Authority that the petitioner belonged to Latin Catholic community. The petitioner has now attained the age of 37 years. After living 37 years as belonging to Latin Catholic

¶136

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶137

: 22 :

¶138

Church, after her siblings and herself taking baptism in a Latin Catholic Church, and after cremating both of her parents in a Latin Catholic Church, respondents 1 and 5 cannot declare that the petitioner does not belong to Latin Catholic faith for the sole reason that the petitioner at this distance of time cannot produce evidence to establish the caste status of her deceased father.

¶139

This Court is of the firm opinion that if a person belonging to any community lives his/her life for considerably long years as being belonging to that community, and such belonging is acknowledged by the general public as well as by the Governmental Authorities, then after long lapse of time, such person cannot be outcasted from that community by Governmental action, unless there is sufficient proof to show that such community status was obtained by such person by fraud or misrepresentation. In the petitioner’s case, she was baptised in a Latin Catholic Church in the year 1993. In her birth records, she was described as belonging to Latin Catholic community. Her SSLC also certified that she is a

¶140

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶141

: 23 :

¶142

Latin Catholic. The Revenue Authorities from time to time issued community certificates and Non-creamy Layer Certificates to the petitioner certifying that she belongs to Latin Catholic community. She competed for Public Service and obtained an appointment on the basis of her merit. Now at this distance of time, the respondents cannot in law declare that the petitioner does not belong to Latin Catholic Community.

¶143

In the circumstances of the case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Exts.P18 to P20 in W.P.(C) No.2961/2018 and Ext.P26 in W.P.(C) No.21173/2019 are therefore quashed.

¶144

Writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶145

Sd/-

¶146

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶147

aks/30.11.2020

¶148

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶149

: 24 :

¶150

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2961/2018

¶151

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶152

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 04.06.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANK LIST DATED 17.05.2012 FOR THE CATEGORY NOS.205/2009 & 206/2009. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.05.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE REGISTER OF BURIALS OF DIOCESE OF SULTANPETTE DATED 04.01.2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE PARISH PRIEST OF THE ST. ANTONY'S CHURCH, ATHIKKODE. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF CREMATING LATE. V.T JOHN AT THE CEMETERY OF ST. ANTHONY'S CHURCH. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE REGISTER OF BAPTISM. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE MARRIAGE PREPARATION COURSE OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.08.2016 ISSUED FROM ST. ANTHONY'S CHURCH. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER.

¶153

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶154

: 25 :

¶155

EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY SSLC CERTI	OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIONER ON 03.02.2009.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIONER ON 09.10.2002.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIONER ON 06.03.2010.
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIONER ON 18.02.2012.
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIONER ON 12.08.2016.
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COP 03.10.2017 RESPONDENT	Y OF THE REPORT DATED SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED	OF THE REPORT DATED 9.11.2017 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2017 THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY THE FATHER	OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P22	RUE COPY REPRESENTA	OF THE A COPY OF THE TION DATED 29.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P23	TRUE COPY 06.06.2017	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.18480/2017.
EXHIBIT P24	TRUE COPY DATED 27.0	OF THE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR 2.2016.

¶156

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBITB R2(a) COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.113/2010/ SCSTDD DATED 04.11.2010.

¶157

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶158

: 26 :

¶159

EXHIBITB R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.25/2014/ BCDD DATED 01.11.2014. EXHIBITB R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.04/ 2015/BCDD DATED 27.01.2015. EXHIBITB R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 585/B3/2016/BCDD DATED 27.02.2016. EXHIBITB R7(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE O A NO.82 OF 2018 PRESENTED ON 12.1.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT R7(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 4.11.2010 EXHIBIT R7(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE STATE OF KERALA DATED 22.8.2011 EXHIBIT R7(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 4.4.2012 EXHIBIT R7(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALL ADJOINING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED OF VARIOUS DATES. EXHIBIT R7(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION AND RECORDS ATTACHED TO THE SAME ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.1.2019.

¶160

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶161

: 27 :

¶162

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21173/2019

¶163

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶164

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY 14.6.2016	OF THE ADVICE MEMO DATED ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY RANK LIST	OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATED 17.5.2012 FOR THE
	CATEGORY 206/2009.	CATEGORY NOS. 205/2009 &
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY 19.5.2017 RESPONDENT	OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY THE FATHER	OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY REGISTER SULTANPETT	OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE OF BURIALS OF DIOCESE OF E DATED 4.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY 30.5.2017 OF THE ST.	OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED ISSUED BY THE PARISH PRIEST ANTHONY'S CHURCH, ATHIKKODE.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY RECEIPT OF THE CEMETE	OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE CREMATING LATE V.T.JOHN AT RY OF ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY REGISTER O	OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE F BAPTISM.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY MARRIAGE PETITIONER	OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PREPARATION COURSE OF THE .
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY 21.8.2016 CHURCH.	OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED ISSUED FROM ST.ANTHONY'S
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY ADMISSION	OF THE EXTRACT OF THE REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER.

¶165

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶166

: 28 :

¶167

EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY SSLC CERTI	OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIOER ON 3.2.2009.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIONER ON 9.10.2002.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIONER ON 6.3.2010.
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIONER ON 18.2.2012.
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE THE PETITIONER ON 12.8.2016.
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED 5TH RESPON	OF THE REPORT DATED 3.10.2017 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE DENT.
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED	OF THE REPORT DATED 9.11.2017 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE ORDER DATED 6.12.2017 THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY THE FATHER	OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P22	TRUE COPY 29.12.2017	OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P23	TRUE COPY 6.6.2017 I	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED N WPC 18480/2017.
EXHIBIT P24	TRUE COPY DATED 27.2	OF THE A COPY OF THE CIRCULAR .2016.
EXHIBIT P25	TRUE COPY 22.9.2018.	OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED

¶168

W.P.(C) Nos.2961/2018 & 21173/2019

¶169

: 29 :

¶170

EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER ON THE DAY OF RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION ON 8.1.12.

¶171

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶172

EXHIBIT R3(a)	TRUE NO.BC	COP DD/A3/36	Y 65/1	OF 7 DAT	COMMUN ED 06.12.2	ICATION 017.
EXHIBIT R3(b)	TRUE 22.11	COPY .2018.	OF	COMM	UNICATION	DATED
EXHIBIT R3(c)	TRUE 29.12	COPY .2017.	OF	APP	LICATION	DATED
EXHIBIT R9(a)	TRUE THE CHURC	COPY OF PARISH H, ATHOC	THE PR ODE	CERTI IEST DATED	FICATE IS OF ST;A 29/12/201	SUED BY NTONY'S 9
EXHIBIT R9(b)	TRUE THE CHURC	COPY OF PARISH H, ATHIC	THE PR ODE	CERTI IEST DATED	FICATE IS OF ST.A 2/1/2020	SUED BY NTONY'S
EXHIBIT R9(c)	TRUE 9TH SERVI INFOR	COPY OF RESPOND CE COM MATION A	THE ENT MISS CT D	REPLY FROM ION U ATED	OBTAINED KERALA NDER RIG 10/01/2019	BY THE PUBLIC HT TO

Mary.J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary.J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P.Narayana Pisharady Vs the Executive Engineer

Nithin Maheswari Vs National Insurance Company Limited

Usman Cholayil Vs the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs

Deepthi Transport Service Vs the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited (Kmml)

Mary.J Vs State of Kerala

Shajida Shajahan Vs the District Magistrate