Allowed

Vinitha Monteiro v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2024WP(C)/2007/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a community certificate issued as 'Roman Catholic' contrary to her school certificate showing 'Latin Catholic'. Court quashed the erroneous certificate and ordered authority to issue the correct one. Petitioner allowed.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 quashed; petitioner allowed to seek correct Community Certificate as Latin Catholic; final certificates to be issued within two weeks.

Vinitha Monteiro Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2007 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VINITHA MONTEIRO
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O. GREGORY MONTEIRO, VELANKANNI NILAYAM,MADHUR ROAD,
RAMDAS NAGAR, KASARGOD-671 124.
BY ADV R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

¶11

BACKWARD COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT (B) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

¶13

OFFICE OF THE DDE, CIVIL STATION, VIDYA NAGAR P.O.,
KASARGODE-671 123.

¶14

4 TAHASILDHAR

¶15

KASARAGOD, TALUK OFFICE, NEAR MALLIKARJUNA TEMPLE,
KASARGODE-671 121.

¶16

5 VILLAGE OFFICER

¶17

KUDLU, VILLAGE OFFICE, KUDLU P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT-671
124.

¶18

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

SRI. P.S.APPU, GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 2007 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner claims to be a member of the
‘Latin Catholic Community’ of the Christian faith
and has produced Ext.P1 – her Secondary School
Leaving Certificate, in substantiation. She says
that, however, when she applied for higher
education and responded to a notification for
Diploma in Elementary Education, issued by the
competent Authority, it was incumbent upon her to
have produced a community certificate, for which,
she approached the 4th respondent – Tahsildar,
which Authority, however, without any tenable
reason, issued Ext.P3, certifying her to be a

¶25

‘Roman Catholic’.

¶26

2.The petitioner says that, she has,
therefore, been left without any other option,

¶27

WP(C) NO. 2007 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

but to approach this Court, seeking that Ext.P3

¶30

be quashed and that she be granted the benefit of
a Community Certificate, showing her correctly to
be part of the Roman Catholic Community.

¶31

3.Before I move forward, I must record that
noticing the submissions of the petitioner as
made by her learned counsel – Sri.R.Krishnakumar,
this Court issued an interim order on 27.01.2021
in the following terms:

¶32

“Admit.

¶33

Learned Government Pleader takes

¶34

notice for the respondents.

¶35

There shall be a direction to
respondents 4 and 5 to issue the
certificate showing the community of the
petitioner as Latin Catholic Community and
also to issue non creamy layer certificate
in case the petitioner comes within the
income limit within a period of one week.
This shall be purely provisional and

¶36

WP(C) NO. 2007 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

subject to further orders.”

¶39

11.02.2022, the petitioner was permitted to

¶40

appear for the final examination of the course,
however, provisionally and subject to the result
of this writ petition.

¶41

counsel for the petitioner, submits that his
client has completed her course and is now

¶42

awaiting final mark list and certificate, which
has been withheld on account of the pendency of
this writ petition.

¶43

6.The learned Government Pleader –

¶44

Sri.P.S.Appu, submitted that the grant of

¶45

Community status to an individual is governed by

¶46

various Government Orders and particular

¶47

Ext.R1(c). He submitted that, as is evident

¶48

WP(C) NO. 2007 OF 2021

¶49

¶50

therefrom, it is only a person who has converted

¶51

as a ‘Latin Catholic’ before 1947, who would be

¶52

entitled to a certification to such effect and
not others; but conceded that, for assessing such

¶53

factum,eventhecertificateofthe

¶54

Ecclesiastical Heads can be used as supporting
material. He argued that, however, when enquiry
was conducted by the Tahsildar, it is revealed
that the petitioner does not really belong to the
Latin Catholic Community; but only to the Roman
Catholic Community and it is, therefore, that

¶55

Ext.P3 records such. He thus prayed that this
writ petition be dismissed.

¶56

7.I notice from the pleadings on record

¶57

that the 2nd respondent, in fact, has filed a

¶58

counter affidavit, wherein, there is not even a
whisper as to how the Authority entered into a

¶59

WP(C) NO. 2007 OF 2021

¶60

¶61

conclusion that the petitioner belongs to ‘Roman

¶62

Catholic Community’. The averments in the said

¶63

counter affidavit is conspicuously absent as to
the enquiry conducted, to find that the
petitionerbelongedto‘RomanCatholic

¶64

Community’; and it is also silent as to how the
petitioner could have been so included, when
Ext.P1 Education Certificate clearly certified

¶65

her to ‘Latin Catholic Community’.

¶66

8.That said, in the perspective of the fact

¶67

that Ext.P1 education certificate certifies the
petitioner to be belonging to a ‘Latin Catholic
Community’, the contents of Ext.R1(c) circular

¶68

would be of no relevance, as far as the

¶69

petitioner is concerned because, there could not
have been a dispute as to whether she belongs to
such community when her certificates remain

¶70

WP(C) NO. 2007 OF 2021

¶71

¶72

uncontested.

¶73

9.Pertinently, even as of now, the

¶74

Authorities do not have case that the contents of

¶75

Ext.P1 is inaccurate or wrong. That apart, the
petitioner is conceded to have now completed her

¶76

course and is awaiting her certificates and final
mark list, which has been held up on account of
the afore interim order of this Court.

¶77

10.I am, therefore, of the firm view that

¶78

Ext.P3 cannot find favour in law and that the

¶79

petitioner is entitled to succeed this writ
petition.

¶80

Resultantly, I confirm the afore interim
orders; and consequently direct that all the
benefits granted under it will inure to the

¶81

petitioner, including her mark list and her
certificates; which shall be issued, as

¶82

WP(C) NO. 2007 OF 2021

¶83

¶84

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.

¶85

As far as Ext.P3 is concerned, it is quashed
and the petitioner will be entitled to seek
Community Certificate in terms of law; for which
purpose, the competent Authorities left liberty
to conduct necessary enquiries, as may be
warranted in law.

¶86

This writ petition is allowed.

¶87

 Sd/-

¶88

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶89

JUDGE

¶90

SAS

¶91

WP(C) NO. 2007 OF 2021

¶92

¶93

¶94

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶95

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L. CERTIFICATE` `NO.L055833 BEARING ADMISSION NO.1134 ISSUED BY` `THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B2/8498/2020` `DATED 13.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.901/2020` `DATED 7.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO` `THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION ISSUED BY OUR` `LADY OF DOLOURS CHURCH, DIOCESE OF MANGALORE,` `KASARGODE DATED 20.1.2021.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.113/2010/ST ST`
	`DEPT DATED 4.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.55/2012/ST ST`
	`DEPT DATED 4.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE IST` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A` `TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `CIRCULAR` `NO.585/B3/2016/SCDD DATED 27.2.2016 ISSUED BY` `THE IST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED` `2.12.2020 IN WPC NO.26637 OF 2020-D OF THIS` `HON'BLE COURT.`
`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:`
`EXHIBIT R1 A`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER` `(MS)NO.113/10/SCSTDD DATED 04.11.2010`
`EXHIBIT R1 B`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER` `NO.55/2012/SCSTDD DATED 04.04.2012`
`EXHIBIT R1 C`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR` `NO.585/B3/2016/SCDD DATED 27.02.2016`

Vinitha Monteiro v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinitha Monteiro 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

Ammukutty Amma @ Kunhukutty Amma Vs Nandini.P

Sree Kumar P.P Vs Union of India Represented by Its Secretary

Cisf Ex – Service Welfare Association Vs Union of India

Merlin K Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Mb Vs the State of Kerala

K.M.Ravi Vs Sri.Subheesh Krishnan