Disposed

Anila George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Sept 2021WP(C)/10365/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a non-creamy layer certificate for a Latin Catholic petitioner. The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider clarification reports and relevant government orders while giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider the application and relevant documents with an opportunity of hearing within two weeks.

Anila George Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10365 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANILA GEORGE

¶8

AGED 29 YEARS D/O.M.O.GEORGE, PADINJARE THADATHIL, VARANAM P.O., CHERTHALA-688 555, RESIDING AT KANICHIKKAT HOUSE, ARTHUNKAL P.O., CHERTHALA-688 530, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR, BACKWARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶13

3 THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 530.

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THANNEERMUKKAM NORTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 530.

¶15

SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 10365 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

===================

¶21

WP(C) No. 10365 OF 2021

¶22

===================

¶23

Dated this the 13^th day of September 2021

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioner belongs to Latin Catholic community which is included in the other backward community in Kerala. The father of the petitioner belongs to Syrian Catholic. The petitioner intends to apply for the post of UPSA in the state service through Public Service Commission and for that purpose she approached the 3^rd respondent to issue non creamy layer certificate through the 4th respondent. Ext.P2 is the application. The 4^th respondent has sought certain clarifications from the 3^rd respondent as evident by Ext.P2 (a). The case of the petitioner is that, as per Ext.P4 the village officer issued a non creamy layer certificate to the petitioner earlier. Now the stand of the 4^th respondent that, the petitioner

¶26

WP(C) NO. 10365 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

will not be given a non creamy layer certificate is unsustainable. Hence this writ petition is filed with the following

¶29

prayers;

¶30

“ i. Call for the records leading to this writ petition.

¶31

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to issue noncreamy layer certificate to the petitioner, within a time frame as may be subjected by this Honourable Court.

¶32

iii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled for issuance of non-creamy layer certificate in the light of Ext. P5 G. O.

¶33

iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶34

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

¶35

learned Government Pleader.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his

¶37

contentions in the writ petition . The learned counsel submitted

¶38

WP(C) NO. 10365 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

that, as per Ext.P3 school certificate the petitioner is treated as Latin Catholic. The learned counsel also submitted that, Ext.P4

¶41

non creamy layer certificate was issued earlier to her on 02.02.2018.

¶42

The learned Government Pleader submitted that, as

¶43

per clause 246 of the village manual, the petitioner is not entitled the non-creamy layer certificate. The learned Government Pleader also relied the judgment of this Court in Annamma Joseph vs. State of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 1). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the above judgment is not applicable and that is delivered entirely on different situation.

¶44

After hearing both sides, according to me, this writ petition can be disposed directing the 3^rd respondent take a decision in this issue. Admittedly, the 4^th respondent wanted a clarification from the 3^rd respondent as evident by Ext.P2 (a). The 3^rd respondent can decide the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned counsel for

¶45

WP(C) NO. 10365 OF 2021

¶46

¶47

the petitioner relied Ext.P5 government order. The 3^rd respondent can consider the applicability of Ext.P5 government order also while deciding the matter.

¶48

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner;

¶49

The 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the matter

¶50

based on Ext.P2 (a) after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

Based on the decision by the 3^rd respondent, the 4^th respondent will do the needful thereafter.

¶52

While considering the issue, the 3^rd respondent will also consider Ext.P5 government order and the applicability of

¶53

the same in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶54

(Sd/-)

¶55

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

¶58

WP(C) NO. 10365 OF 2021

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10365/2021

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶62

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BAPTISM CERTIFICATE OF LATE MARY JESEENTHA DATED 24.03.2021. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.115/2021 DATED 23.03.2021 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE NO.G 444282 DATED 11.06.2007 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE VIDE NO.435/2018 DATED 02.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.08/2019/BCDD DATED 08.05.2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶63

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Anila George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anila George 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beaulah Grace Albert Vs Rose Jose

Dr. Amrutha K Sadasivan Vs National Medical Commission

Ashraf C.A. Vs the Secretary

Sundara Rajan .P Vs the District Collector

M and T Constructions Vs State of Kerala

Willingdon Enclave Owners Association Vs the District Registrar (General)