Shyamili Sasidharan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5030 Ker

         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.29941 OF 2019(P)



PETITIONER:

              SHYAMILI SASIDHARAN,
              AGED 25 YEARS,
              D/O. P.N. SASIDHARAN,
              SARIKA NIVAS,
              CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 534.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.VISHAK.K.JOHNSON
              SRI.S.S.ARAVIND
              SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)


RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY TO
              GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE
              DEVELOPMENT (G) DEPARTMENT,
              GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

     2        THE TAHSILDAR,
              TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA,
              ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524

     3        THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF
              COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE,
              SC/ST DEVELOPMENT (G) DEPARTMENT,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
              GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

              SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.PRAKASH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.29941/2019
                                :2 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 11th day of February, 2021

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by

Exts.P5, P7 and P8 orders whereby the claim of the petitioner

as to the status of Scheduled Caste Kuravan Community

stands rejected.

2. The petitioner would contend that she belongs to

Scheduled Caste (Kuravan) Community. The Tahsildar,

Cherthala has issued caste certificate to the petitioner

showing the petitioner as Hindu Kuravan. When the petitioner

applied for admission to professional degree course in 2013,

the Screening Committee constituted for assessing the caste

of the candidates, refused to recognise the petitioner as

belonging to Kuravan community. The petitioner thereupon

filed W.P.(C) No.31632/2017. The said writ petition was

disposed of by this Court directing the Scrutiny Committee to

pass orders on the caste status of the petitioner. WP(C) No.29941/2019

3. The petitioner contends that the Vigilance Officer of

the Scrutiny Committee thereafter conducted enquiry and

made certain adverse remarks against the petitioner. On

06.02.2019, the Vigilance Officer of the KIRTADS submitted

Ext.P5 report to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. In

the said report, the Vigilance Officer concluded that the

petitioner belongs to Chunnambu Velan community and the

claim of the petitioner for Hindu Scheduled Caste (Kuravan)

status cannot be accepted.

4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 objection in

response to show-cause notice issued by the Scrutiny

Committee, producing relevant documents marked as A to R.

In Ext.P6, the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner's father

and close family circles belong to Kuravan community and

requested that the report of the KIRTADS may be rejected.

5. The Scrutiny Committee, however, passed Ext.P7

order whereby the Committee found that the findings of the

Vigilance Officer are just and proper. The Scrutiny Committee

rejected the Scheduled Caste (Kuravan) claim of the petitioner WP(C) No.29941/2019

and decided to cancel the community certificates issued to the

petitioner by competent authorities. Ext.P7 was forwarded to

the 1st respondent.

6. The 1st respondent accepted the recommendations

of the Scrutiny Committee and held that the petitioner and her

family members do not belong to Scheduled Caste (Kuravan)

community but to Chunnambu Velan community and the

petitioner and her family members are not entitled for any of

the benefits exclusively reserved for the members of

Scheduled Caste.

7. The petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P7 and P8 on

various grounds. According to the petitioner, the petitioner

and her family members belong to Scheduled Caste (Kuravan)

community. The report of the Vigilance Officer is incorrect.

The anthropological report submitted by the Director of

Vigilance was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner was

not given an opportunity to raise objections against Ext.P5

report.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that WP(C) No.29941/2019

the genealogical and documentary evidence relied on by the

Vigilance Officer would indicate that the petitioner actually

belongs to Kuravan community. The counsel for the petitioner

further argued that the Scrutiny Committee miserably failed to

consider a number of documents produced by the petitioner.

The petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal

hearing. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a caste

certificate issued to an individual cannot be cancelled without

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In such

circumstances, Exts.P5, P7 and P8 are liable to be set aside

permitting the petitioner to establish her caste status before

the authorities.

9. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. The

learned Government Pleader representing the respondents

submitted that the Scrutiny Committee considered the

grievance of the petitioner in its sitting held on 28.05.2019.

The petitioner attended the hearing. The petitioner argued her

case and stated that the petitioner and her relatives, both

maternal and paternal side, belong to Scheduled Caste WP(C) No.29941/2019

(Kuravan) community. This Court had directed the Scrutiny

Committee to consider the contentions of the petitioner.

10. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that

at the time of enquiry by the Vigilance Officer, the petitioner's

father had given a statement in which he stated that his father

was traditionally engaged in lime work, traditional medicinal

practices and also led and engaged in some religious

ceremonies, viz. Pallipana and Morothu. These religious

rituals are performed by Chunnambu Velan community, to

ward off evil spirits. Those are not traditions of Kuravan

community.

11. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that

the mother of the petitioner and her ancestors belong to Velan

community. The field enquiry conducted by the respondents

and the ethnographic documents establish that the petitioner's

parents belong to the same endogamous group, viz.

Chunnambu Velan community. It was in the circumstances

that the Scrutiny Committee came to its conclusion. The

conclusion of the Scrutiny Committee approved by the 1 st WP(C) No.29941/2019

respondent is not liable to be interfered with, contended the

learned Government Pleader.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

13. It has come out in the enquiry made by the Scrutiny

Committee that the grandfather of the petitioner belonged to

Chunnambu Velan community. The similarity of livelihood

activities revealed that the petitioner's grandfather followed the

tradition of Chunnambu Velan community. The tradition of

Kuravan community is different. The anthropological evidence

clearly established that the petitioner and her forefathers

belong to Chunnambu Velan community. The petitioner's

mother's grandfather admittedly belongs to Velan community.

He married to late Lakshmi who also belonged to Velan

community. Their son Velayudhan married one Ammini who

also belonged to Velan community. Out of the marital union

between them, six children were born including the mother of

the petitioner. Out of them, Chellamma married one WP(C) No.29941/2019

Madhavan who belonged to Velan community. Karunakaran

married to Ramla alias Ammini who also belonged to Velan

community. Savithri married to Chandran who belonged to

Hindu Pulaya community. The mother of the petitioner

completed her primary education and secondary education

where her caste status was entered as Hindu Velan.

14. The sibling of the petitioner Sharika Sasidharan

married to Arun of Thiruvananthapuram who belonged to

Hindu Pulaya community. The Scrutiny Committee noted that

Chunnambu Velan community and Kuravan community are

different historically and culturally. Livelihood practices, social

structure, belief and rituals are also different. The Scrutiny

Committee elaborately considered the difference between

Chunnambu Velan and Kuravan community to arrive at its

conclusions.

15. It is to be noted that the enquiry conducted by the

Scrutiny Committee proved that the grandfathers of the

petitioner followed the customs and traditions of Chunnambu

Velan community. Most of their relatives also belonged to WP(C) No.29941/2019

Velan community. It is under such circumstances that the

Scrutiny Committee has come to a factual finding as to the

caste status of the petitioner. This Court has no reason to

held that the factual findings of the Scrutiny Committee are

wrong.

16. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that the

petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing to represent

her caste and establish her caste status. A perusal of the

pleadings would show that the petitioner was aware of the

proceedings and submitted Ext.P6 to the Scrutiny Committee,

which contained detailed objections to the proposal of the

Scrutiny Committee to treat her as belonging to Chunnambu

Velan community. A number of documents were referred to.

The counter affidavit filed by the respondents would show that

the petitioner was present when a hearing was taken place on

28.05.2019. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner's

objections were considered by the Scrutiny Committee and

the petitioner was heard in person. A perusal of Ext.P7 would

also indicate that the Scrutiny Committee had considered the WP(C) No.29941/2019

objections of the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court

is of the opinion that there is no violation of principles of

natural justice as the petitioner participated in the proceedings

and filed objections, which were considered by the Scrutiny

Committee.

In the facts and circumstances narrated above, this

Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/12.02.2021 WP(C) No.29941/2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1            TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE SCHOOL
                      ADMISSION    REGISTER     WHERE    THE

PETITIONER'S PATERNAL UNCLE SURENDRAN P.N, STUDIED FROM 26.5.1958 TO 15.5.1963.

EXHIBIT P2            TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE
                      ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR OF CHERTHALA
                      TALUK STATING THAT THE PETITIONER'S
                      FATHER    BELONGS  TO    HINDU-KURAVA
                      COMMUNITY.

EXHIBIT P3            TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF       THIS
                      HON'BLE    COURT   IN    W.P.(C)    NO.
                      31632/2017 DATED 12.10.2017.

EXHIBIT P4            TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
                      NO. 16187/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
                      DATED 15.3.2017.

EXHIBIT P5            TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED FROM
                      THE VIGILANCE OFFICER TO THE CHAIRMAN
                      OF   THE    SCRUTINY   COMMITTEE   FOR

VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 6.2.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO HER DATED 26.3.2019.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DATED 9.8.2019.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26.9.2019.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF SSLC REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER.

SR