Dismissed

P.Rajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jan 2021WP(C)/26459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking Scheduled Caste certificate was rejected by Scrutiny Committee for invasion of hubris of converting family to Christianity. Court upheld expulsion of petitioner based on overwhelming evidence of Christian faith and denial of customs, citing acceptance requirement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition failing to establish Scheduled Caste status is dismissed; the orders of the Scrutiny Committee rejecting the claim are upheld.

P.Rajan 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 N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/8TH MAGHA, 1942 WP(C).No.26459 OF 2019(F)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

P.RAJAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. PONNAIHA, K.P.XIV/268, VALIYAKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHELIMADA, KUMILY P.O., IDUKKI-685 509.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1.

¶10

2 CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.

¶11

3 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE-673 017.

¶12

4 THE VIGILANGE OFFICER, VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE-673 017.

¶13

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

5 PONRAJ. V., S/O. LATE VELLAYAPPAN, HML CHENAKRA ESTATE LINES, CHENKARA P.O., KUMILY VILLAGE, KUMILY P.O., IDUKKI-685 509

¶16

R5 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM R5 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI K.V.PRAKASH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.26459/2019

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.26459 of 2019

¶23

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2021

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶26

The petitioner, who belongs to Sambava

¶27

Community, is before this Court seeking to call for the records relating to the enquiry report in Exts.P7, P8 and P9 and quash the same.

¶28

The petitioner states that he is a Hindu Scheduled Caste (Sambava). His parents belong to Sambava Community. His grand parents migrated from Tamil Nadu to Kumali in search of employment and settled there. Ext.P2 extract of School Admission Register would show that the petitioner is a Hindu Sambavar. Ext.P3 certificate issued by Akhila Kerala Cheramar Hindu Mahasabha (AKCHMS) would

¶29

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

show that the petitioner's father and family members had taken membership in the AKCHMS since the year 1970-'71. The Transfer Certificate issued to the petitioner from the Government Arts College, Thiruvananthapuram produced as Ext.P4, would evidence that the petitioner was given Scheduled Caste concession during his studies. Ext.P5 certificate would show that the petitioner is a member of Kumali Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Society and was even a Director Board Member of the said Society from 06.03.2010 to 05.03.2015.

¶32

Sree Ganapathi Bhadrakali Devaswom Trust has issued Ext.P6 certificate showing that the petitioner is living as a Hindu and believes in temple worship. In fact, the Tahsildar, Peermed Taluk has issued Sambava Community Certificate to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 show-cause notice of the Scrutiny Committee for verification of Community Certificates in which it was alleged that the petitioner and his family members had obtained Scheduled Caste (Sambava) Community Certificate with malafide

¶33

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

intention of claiming reservation benefits exclusively meant for Scheduled Castes and that the petitioner and his family do not belong to Scheduled Caste (Sambava) Community.

¶36

The Scrutiny Committee invited the petitioner for a hearing on 28.05.2019. The petitioner through his lawyer produced relevant documents and argued that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. However, the 2^nd respondent rejected the contentions of the petitioner and issued Ext.P8 order rejecting the Scheduled Caste (Sambava) claim of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent forwarded Ext.P8 to the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent in turn issued Ext.P9 order accepting the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and rejected the claim of caste status of the petitioner.

¶37

Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit. Respondents 1 and 2 stated that the petitioner actually belongs to Christian Community of Sambava origin. The petitioner's paternal grandfather late Issac belonged to Christian Community. The said Issac married to Thiruvamozhi alias Krishnamma who claims to be a Hindu Sambava. Out of

¶38

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

their wedlock, late Ponnayya and Thavamani were born. Thavamani married to one Chellayya who is a Hindu Sambava. The paternal grandmother of the petitioner Krishnamma migrated to Kerala. The geniological and discrete field level enquiry revealed that the petitioner's grandparents migrated to Kerala before 1950. The petitioner's father is an offspring of Christian Sambava father and mother claiming to be Hindu Sambava.

¶41

Respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that the petitioner's father, mother and siblings received baptism in the year 1993 and became members of Church of South India, Kumali. The petitioner's maternal grandfather and grandmother who claimed to be Hindus, gave birth to 8 children. Among them, one Santhosham alias Pazhaniyamma married to Ponnayya who is a Christian. The baptism certificate of the petitioner's mother showed that the family is following Christian faith. In the year 1993, the petitioner's father, mother and siblings received baptism and became Christians. Respondents 1 and 2 further pointed out that

¶42

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶43

: 7 :

¶44

petitioner is married to Esthar Rosi who belonged to Christian Community. The petitioner had two children Akash and Hakesh. Akash is a declared Christian. The documents collected and discrete field level enquiry made by KIRTADS revealed that the petitioner's parents and siblings are following Christianity and therefore the petitioner cannot be considered as a member of Hindu religion. Consequently, he cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Exts.P1 to P8 documents would undoubtedly establish that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste. Exts.P3, P5 and P6 documents would show that the petitioner is a Hindu Scheduled Caste and that the petitioner has been accepted as a Scheduled Caste (Sambava) by the Sambava Community.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that merely because the grandfather of the petitioner had converted to Christianity, it cannot be assumed that he enunciated his Scheduled Caste. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ganpath v. Returning Officer and

¶47

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶48

: 8 :

¶49

others [(1975 ) 1 SCC 589] , C.N. Arumugham v. S. Rajagopal [(1976 ) 1 SCC 863], S. Anbalagan v. B. Devarajan and others [1984 (2) SCC 112], The Principal, Gundur Medical College v. Y. Mohan Rao [(1976) 3 SCC 411] and Kailash Sonkar v. Mayadevi [AIR 1984 SC 600], the learned counsel urged that there should be a renunciation of caste by the convert and then alone, a person will lose Scheduled Caste status. Mere conversion of religion does not by itself show that the convert is not suffering from any disadvantage faced by Scheduled Castes. If the convert desires and intends to continue as a member of the caste and the caste also continues to treat him as a member, then notwithstanding his conversion, he would continue to be a member of the caste.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Manu v. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for verification of Community Certificates [2015 (2) KLT 237 (SC)] argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the parents of a person are converted from Hinduism to

¶51

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶52

: 9 :

¶53

Christianity and he is born after the conversion and later embraces Hinduism and the members of the caste accept him, then he would come within the fold of Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that his father and mother were Hindu Sambavas. His paternal grandmother was also a Hindu Sambava. For the sole reason that his paternal grandfather embraced Christianity, it cannot be held that the petitioner also is a Christian.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a judgment of this Court in Jibin C. Baby v. Commissioner for Entrance Examination and others [2016 (1) KLJ 683] wherein this Court held that in the case of members of Scheduled Caste who embrace other religions in their quest for liberation, but returned to their old religion on finding that their disabilities have clung to them with great tenacity. In the said case, this Court accepted a certificate issued by Hindu Cheramar Sangham to come to a conclusion that the petitioner therein was accepted and taken to the fold of Hindu Cheramar Community by its members.

¶55

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶56

: 10 :

¶57

Sri. K.V. Prakasan, learned Special Government Pleader (SC/ST), relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Maduri Patil v. Additional Commissioner [(1994) 6 SCC 241] and argued that the Scrutiny Committee is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it and the decision of the Committee should prevail unless found vitiated in judicial review. In the case of the petitioner, a proper enquiry was made by the Scrutiny Committee and field level enquiry revealed that the petitioner is a Christian Sambava and he is not following the customs or practices of Scheduled Caste (Sambava). The petitioner is trying to usurp the benefits available to Scheduled Castes by forging documents. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

¶58

The 5^th respondent filed a counter affidavit. Sri. Biju C. Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent, urged that in the report of the Scrutiny Committee, it is clearly stated that the petitioner's father belongs to Christian Community and the family is following Christianity. The petitioner married from Christian Community.

¶59

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶60

: 11 :

¶61

The petitioner's parents and siblings are all following Christianity and in the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste.

¶62

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

¶63

Heard.

¶64

It has been revealed in the enquiry made by the KIRTADS that the petitioner's paternal grandfather was Christian. The petitioner's father was also a Christian. The petitioner married a Christian. Three siblings of the petitioner are also Christians. It is true that the paternal grandfather of the petitioner married a Hindu Scheduled Caste (Sambava). The petitioner's father also married a Scheduled Caste Hindu Sambava. But, those facts would not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste (Sambava).

¶65

Document No.7 relied by the Scrutiny Committee would disclose that the petitioner's father and his three

¶66

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶67

: 12 :

¶68

siblings baptised in the Church in the year 1993. The whole family members of the petitioner, his wife and children are living in Christian faith. The petitioner also chose a spouse from Christian Community. In view of such overwhelming facts and evidence, the onus on the petitioner to establish that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community is heavy. Documentary evidence such as Ext.P3 issued by a community organisation certifying the membership of the petitioner in the said organisation and Ext.P5 certificate showing that the petitioner was a member of a Society formed by the Scheduled Caste citizens, are insufficient. The petitioner has the burden to establish that he is living as a Hindu Scheduled Caste (Sambava) following its customs and practices and that the Scheduled Caste Community has accepted the petitioner as one among them. This acceptance is required because all the family members and siblings and father of the petitioner are converted Christians.

¶69

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the findings of the

¶70

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶71

: 13 :

¶72

Scrutiny Committee for verification of Community Certificates, entered into after anthropological enquiry. This Court finds that the conclusions in Ext.P8 order of the Scrutiny Committee is based on material evidence collected by the Committee. There is no reason to unsettle the findings of the respondents in Exts.P7, P8 or P9.

¶73

The writ petition therefore fails and consequentially it is dismissed.

¶74

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/21.01.2021

WP(C) No.26459/2019

: 14 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶80

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY
	CERTIFICATE DATED 30.9.2015 ISSUED FROM THE PEERUMEDU TALUK OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER DATED 20.4.2017
	ISSUED FROM GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL AND T.T.I, KUMILY.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.11.2016 ISSUED BY WHOLE KERALA CHERAMAR HINDU MAHA SABHA KOLLAMPATTADA BRANCH, KUMILY.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DATED 25.4.1998 ISSUED FROM THE GOVT. ARTS COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM KUMILY SCHEDULED CASTE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE SREE GANAPATY BHADRAKALI DEVASWAM TRUST.
EXHIBIT P7	ORIGINAL COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14.11.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND THE INQUIRY REPORT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.8.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF G.O. (MS) NO. 71/2019/SCSTDD DATED 18.9.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ALL KERALA CHERAMAR HINDU MAHASABHA BEARING
	SL.NO.1714(VOL.No.32)

¶81

WP(C) No.26459/2019

¶82

: 15 :

¶83

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KUMILY SCHEDULED CASTE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.No.1195, KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶84

P.Rajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rejumon Varghese Vs Government of Kerala

T.M.Abdul Hameed Khan Vs Government of Kerala

Rejumon Varghese Vs Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited

Vinod Kumar P Vs State of Kerala

Gopinathan Palakkal Vs Union of India

Shaji.N.R Vs the Kochi Corporation