Allowed

Gowri.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2021WP(C)/2550/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a minor, sought a Non-Creamy Layer Certificate. The authority rejected it because both parents were deemed Class II officers. The Court held an aided school teacher is not a Class II officer. The petitioner was directed to be considered and issued the certificate if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for non-creamy layer certificate and issue it if eligible.

Gowri.S. Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.2550 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GOWRI.S., AGED 17, MINOR, REPRESENTED THROUGH HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SAJEEV T, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN, GOWRI NANDANAM, ERAM MIDDLE, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 572.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001

¶12

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM PIN - 691 001.

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (NEET), CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSH KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI PIN - 110 098

¶14

ADDL.

¶15

5 THE DIRECTOR, NTA, C-20, IA/8, SECTOR 62, IITK OUTREACH CENTER, NOIDA - 201 309

¶16

WP(C).No.2550/2020(P)

¶17

¶18

THE ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 30-01-2020 IN I.A. 04/2020 IN W.P.(C)

¶19

ADDL. 6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 013

¶20

THE ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 20-08-2020 IN I.A.07/2020 IN W.P.C)

¶21

R4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL S, SC R1-3,ADDL.R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No.2550/2020(P)

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2021

¶27

The petitioner is seeking a direction to grant her a Non-Creamy Layer Certificate.

¶28

The petitioner filed an application before the 2^nd respondent for issuing a Non-creamy layer certificate. The 2^nd respondent however rejected the application on the ground that both the parents of the petitioner belong to Class II category of employees. According to the petitioner, petitioner's mother is an aided school teacher and therefore cannot be treated as Class II.

¶29

The respondents filed a counter statement. The respondents contended that after considering the application of the petitioner, it was noticed that father and mother of the petitioner have entered in the Government service as Class II Officers. According to the respondents, in view of the

¶30

WP(C).No.2550/2020(P)

¶31

¶32

Government Order dated 26.09.2009, if both the parents of the petitioner have entered Government services as Class II Officers, their children will not be eligible for non-creamy layer certificate. It is under such circumstances that the certificate has been declined to the petitioner.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶35

Ext.P8 G.O(P)No.81/09/SCSTDD dated 26.09.2009

¶36

prescribes the criteria for grant of non-creamy layer certificate. Annexure-D Schedule to Ext.P8 in its Clause B, reads as follows:

¶37

“B. Group B/Class II Officers of the Central and State Service (Direct Recruitment): Son (s) and daughter (s) of:

¶38

(a) Parents both of whom are Class II Officers.

¶39

(b) Parents of whom only the husband is a Class II Officer and he gets into Class I at the age of 35 or earlier.

¶40

(c) Parents, both of whom are Class II Officers and one of them dies or suffers permanent incapacitation and either one of them has had the benefit of employment in any International Organisation like UN, IMF, World Bank etc., for a period of not less than 5 years before such death or permanent incapacitation.

¶41

(d) Parents of whom the husband is a Class I Officer (direct recruit or pre thirty five

¶42

WP(C).No.2550/2020(P)

¶43

¶44

promoted) and the wife is a Class II Officer and the wife dies: or suffers permanent incapacitation; and

¶45

(e) Parents of whom the wife is a Class I Officer (Direct Recruit or pre thirty five promoted) and the husband is a Class II Officer and the husband dies or suffers permanent incapacitation:

¶46

Provided that the rule of exclusion shall not apply in the following cases: Son (s) and daughter (s) of

¶47

(a) Parents both of whom are Class II Officers and one of them dies or suffers permanent incapacitation.

¶48

(b) Parents, both of whom are Class II Officers and both of them die or suffer permanent incapacitation, even though either of them has had the benefit of employment in any International Organisation like UN, IME, World Bank etc., for a period of not less than 5 years before their death or permanent incapacitation.”

¶49

Therefore, it is evident that for exclusion of the candidate, both the parents should be Class II Officers.

¶50

The classification of employees into Class I to IV/Group A to D, is made in Government service. The petitioner's mother is an aided school teacher. There is no document before me to find that the aided school teachers

¶51

are also categorized into Class I to IV/Group A to D. In Ext.P7, the District Collector has also noticed that there are

¶52

WP(C).No.2550/2020(P)

¶53

¶54

no Government Orders categorizing aided higher secondary

¶55

school teachers as Class II.

¶56

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's application for non-creamy layer certificate is not

¶57

liable to be rejected on the basis of Ext.P8 Government Order. In the circumstances, the petitioner is held to be entitled to relief in this writ petition.

¶58

In view of the above, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for non-creamy layer certificate and issue a non-creamy layer certificate to the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.

¶59

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶60

Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶61

¶62

WP(C).No.2550/2020(P)

¶63

¶64

APPENDIX

¶65

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶66

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16/11/2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18/11/2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2019 MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR NEET EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 15/02/2020. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DATED 17/09/2020. EXHIBIT P8 GO(P) NO.81/09/SCSTDD DATED 26/09/2009. EXHIBIT P9 CIRCULAR NO.27396/F3/07/SCSTDD. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO. 1/2015/BCDD DATED 01/01/2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR KEAM ENTRANCE EXAMINATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶67

ANNEXURE R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 13/03/2020 ISSUED IN THIS REGARD ON THE NEET (UG) PORTAL (NTANEET.NIC.IN) FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CANDIDATES.

¶68

SR //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Gowri.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowri.S. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.S.Satheesachandran Vs P.Venugopal

K.K.Ummer, Vs the District Collector

Kerala Handball Association Vs Union of India

Madhu T. K. Vs the State of Kerala

Modern Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Deepa.T.Padman Vs State Bank of India