Kerala High Court
Dr.P.P Yogesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/22ND MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.15322 OF 2016(M)
PETITIONERS:
1 DR.P.P YOGESH,
S/O. PRABHAKARAN, PILAKKAL HOUSE,
MADAKKARA, IRUNAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT
2 P.P PRASEETHAKUMARI,
P.D TEACHER,
GOVERNMENT FISHERIES HIGH SCHOOL,
CHERUVATHOOR, KASARAGOD
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE CHAIRMAN,
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION
COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES,
SC/ST DEVELOPMENT(G) DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KASARAGOD-671 121
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
:2:
4 KERALA INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH,
TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES OF
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(KIRTADS), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
GOLF LINK RD, VRINDAVAN COLONY,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673 017
SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ROBIN RAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.15322 of 2016
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioners are before this Court seeking to
quash Exts.P1 and P7 to P9 and to declare that they belong
to "Moger Community" and not "Valan Community" as stated
in Exts.P1, P7 and P8.
2. The 1st petitioner is a Doctor and the 2 nd petitioner
is a P.D. Teacher. On the basis of Ext.P1 report dated
06.04.1993 of KIRTADS, the Scrutiny Committee constituted
under the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community
Certificates Act, 1996 passed order dated 26.05.1999
holding that the petitioners do not belong to Moger
Community. The order dated 26.05.1999 passed by the 2 nd
respondent-Chairman, Scrutiny Committee was challenged
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
by filing MFA No.652/1999. By Ext.P2 judgment dated
25.07.2006, this Court allowed the MFA.
3. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.P3 show
cause notice dated 11.10.2006. The petitioners filed their
objection on 11.11.2006. On 27.08.2009, another show
cause notice was issued on the petitioners requiring to
furnish their written arguments. The petitioners filed Ext.P4
argument notes with Annexures-A1 to A9 documents.
According to the petitioners, further notice dated 20.11.2015
was served on the petitioners requiring them to appear
before the Scrutiny Committee, State of Kerala on
05.12.2015. The petitioners appeared before the 1 st
respondent and submitted Ext.P6 objections/argument notes.
4. In spite of the evidence adduced by the
petitioners, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated
26.03.2016 based on which the salary of the 2 nd petitioner
was withheld. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner learnt that the 2nd
respondent has passed Ext.P7 order dated 19.01.2016. By
Ext.P8 order, the Government directed that the service of the
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
2nd petitioner shall be terminated forthwith. Thereupon, the
Deputy Director of Education issued Ext.P9 order withholding
the salary of the 2nd petitioner. It is aggrieved by Exts.P1 and
P7 to P9 that the petitioners have approached this Court.
5. According to the petitioners, Annexure-A1
document produced by the petitioners would show that the
2nd petitioner belongs to Moger Community. Annexure-A2,
extract of the School Admission Register of Gopalan
Pilackal, who is the uncle of the 2 nd petitioner would show
that the uncle of the 2nd petitioner belongs to Moger
Community. Annexure-A4 School Admission Register would
also reinforce this fact. Annexure-A3 document, which is a
copy of School Admission Register of Kuruppasseri
Chidambaram Madai, one of the relatives of the petitioners,
would show that the said relative belongs to Moger
Community. Annexure-A6 School Admission Register would
also support the petitioners' case. Therefore, there is ample
evidence to show that the petitioners belong to Moger
Community. The findings of the respondents and
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
consequential action are therefore unsustainable.
6. The 1st respondent defended the writ petition filing
a counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that Ext.P1
anthropological enquiry report in respect of the petitioners
and consequential proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee
found that the petitioners and their family belong to Valan
(OBC) Community. Valan is a sub-caste of Hindu Fishermen
Community. The petitioners' paternal grandfather Kelappan
belonged to Valan Community and was a fisherman. His
wife Madhavi also belonged to Valan Community. The said
Kelappan and Madhavi had eight children. Extract from the
Register of Admission of one of the children Narayani
showed that she belongs to Valan Community. Another child
Karthikeyan was also admitted in school showing that he
belongs to Valan. The genealogical report revealed that the
petitioners' father late Prabhakaran was born in Valan
Community. Evidence is in abundance to show that the
petitioners, in fact, belong to Valan Community. The orders
impugned by the petitioners are therefore legally valid. The
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
writ petition is liable to be rejected.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Government pleader appearing for
the respondents.
8. It is evident from the pleadings that the
anthropological study conducted on Valan Community and
Moger Community in Kerala revealed that these are two
distinct Communities. The Hindu Fishermen Community of
Kerala has many segments, out of which Valan is one.
Valan are Fishermen of backwaters and rivers. The
Community is found in Kannur District and were originally
inhabitants of Cochin. The Scheduled Caste (Moger)
Community of Kerala is different. They are found in
Kasaragod District and speak Tulu language. The traditional
occupation of Moger has been tilling of lands of caste
Hindus. Their womenfolk are adept in Mat-weaving, using
Pandanous leaf strips .
9. The members of Valan Community inhabiting in
Kannur District started to style themselves as Moger. At the
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
same time, the said Community living in Cochin have not
styled themselves as Scheduled Caste (Moger) Community.
The Valan Community members in Kannur started to infiltrate
into Moger Community in the 1960s. The 2 nd petitioner was
born in 1967 and was admitted in school describing her as
Moger. It was a misrepresentation. She secured her job
against quota reserved for Scheduled Caste (Moger)
Community. The 1st petitioner also secured admission to
BAMS scores against the quota reserved for Scheduled
Caste.
10. The enquiry report submitted by the courts would
show that the petitioners' paternal grandfather Kelappan and
paternal grandmother Madhavi belonged to Valan
Community. They had eight children. Documents revealed
that out of the eight children, Narayani, Karthikeyan,
Soudamini, Komalavally and Visalakshy, belonged to Valan
Community. Ext.R1(a) document showed that petitioners'
father late Prabhakaran was also born in Valan Community.
Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee had ample evidence to
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
show that the petitioners belong to Valan Community. The
arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the
contrary, therefore are unsustainable.
11. This Court does not find any procedural
irregularity in Exts.P1, P7 or P8. The petitioners have a case
that the proceedings are barred by limitation. As far as
Scheduled Caste status of claimants is concerned, no law
prescribes a period of limitation for the competent authorities
to ascertain their caste status. The petitioners have a case
that no enquiry was conducted after issuing notice to the
parties. The pleadings in the writ petition would show that
opportunities were given to the petitioners to establish their
caste and they had utilized the opportunities also.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P1 and
Exts.P7 to P9 orders/proceedings. The writ petition is
therefore devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/05.02.2021
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE KIRTADS REPORT DATED
6-4-1993
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MFA
652/1999 DATED 25-7-2006
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
11-10-2006
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS WITH ANNEXURES A1-
9 ON 29-09-2009
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20-11-2015
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 5-12-
2015 WITHOUT ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT NO.
8014/G2/2001/SC/STDD DATED 19-1-2016
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT NO.GO(MS)
32/2016/SC/STDD DATED 26-3-2016
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-
1172/2008 DATED 6-4-2016 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY REPRESENTATION DATED
22/6/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 3/7/2019
W.P.(C) No.15322/2016
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENTIRE EXHIBIT P1
ANTHROPOLOGICAL ENQUIRY REPORT DATED
6.4.1993 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS
DATED 06.04.1993 SUBMITTED BY
KIRTADS.
SR
