Kerala High Court
Anu.S.P vs State Of Kerala on 1 November, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:1:- 2024:KER:80994
'C.R.'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 241 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2019 IN OA NO.195 OF 2018 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
ANU.S.P.,
AGED 31 YEARS
FIREMAN, FIRE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM- 686661,
RESIDING AT APPATTUVILA KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU,
KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695524.
BY ADVS.
N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
P.K.MANOJKUMAR
SMITHA S.PILLAI
ALICE THOMAS
M.C.SINY
RESPONDENT/S:
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:2:- 2024:KER:80994
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
2 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PSC OFFICE, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
3 THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PSC OFFICE, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004.
4 THE INTERNAL VIGILANCE OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PSC OFFICE, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004.
5 BINJU R.G.,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT T.C.501263, VARUKUZHIYEM
VILAKATHU VEEDU, THALIYAL, KARAMANA (P.O), TRIVANDRUM-
695002, (IS IMPLEADED ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.5 AS PER
ORDER DATED 21.03.2018 IN MA 532/18 IN O.A.NO.195/18),
KERALA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.10.2024, THE COURT ON 01.11.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:3:- 2024:KER:80994
'C.R.'
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & P.M.MANOJ, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019
-----------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2024
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner, Mr.Anu, was born to Hindu Nadar parents.
He was raised and brought up as a Hindu Nadar. Hindu Nadar is a
backward community and the members of the community are
entitled for reservation.
2. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) invited
applications in the year 2011 to the NCA vacancy for Hindu Nadar
candidates for the post of Jail Warder in the Jail Department. Anu
applied and got a selection as per the advice memo of KPSC on
25/02/2015. He had also applied for the post of Fireman (Trainee)
through KPSC as per the notification issued in the year 2012 and he
got selected and was advised, as per advice memo dated
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:4:- 2024:KER:80994
15/07/2015. This selection was again in the community category
of Hindu Nadar. Anu resigned from the post of Male Warder and
joined as a Fireman (Trainee) with effect from 03/01/2016.
3. On 13/01/2017, Anu received a show cause notice from
KPSC stating that a fraud has been committed by him on KPSC as
to his caste status. It is also stated therein that Anu was converted
to Christianity, and thereafter, reconverted to the Hindu
Community through the Arya Samaj. It is further stated in the
show cause notice that, suppressing the caste status in the actual
application, Anu got the selection to the community quota and,
therefore, it has to be cancelled. Anu gave a reply to the show
cause notice and, thereafter, filed O.A.No.185/2017 before the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the
original application on 07/08/2017 directing KPSC to pass final
orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to Anu. Thereafter,
KPSC passed a final order and ordered cancellation of advice. This
order was issued on 29/01/2018. KPSC found that after the last
date of application, Anu converted his religion from Hindu Nadar to
Christianity and obtained an appointment by committing fraud. The
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:5:- 2024:KER:80994
last date for receipt of the application to the post of Male Warder in
the NCA vacancy was 14/12/2011. It is the case of KPSC that Anu
converted to Christianity after the submission of the application to
the post of Jail Warder in the Jail Department and reconverted to
Hindu Nadar as per the Gazette Notification on 30/08/2014. KPSC
thus ordered cancellation of the advice memo and also ordered
registration of a criminal case against him. KPSC also noted that in
terms of general conditions, Anu is debarred from applying for all
future posts and, therefore, his subsequent appointment as a
Fireman (Trainee) is vitiated. This was questioned by Anu before
the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that Anu married a Christian lady
in a Church on 13/11/2013. Therefore, the Tribunal assumed that
Anu embraced Christian religion. Tribunal also noted that Anu had
embraced Hinduism through the Arya Samaj and caused issuance
of Gazette notification on 30/08/2014. Tribunal found that the
Suddhi Certificate issued by the Arya Samaj reveals that he had
converted to Christian Nadar community during the selection
process of Male Warder. Therefore, holding that Anu committed
fraud, the Tribunal affirmed the order of KPSC.
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:6:- 2024:KER:80994
4. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Nandakumara Menon
argued that KPSC failed to take into account the explanation
offered by Anu as to the circumstances under which the Gazette
notification happened to be issued. The learned Counsel reiterated
that Anu was never converted to Christianity. According to the
learned Counsel, Anu married a Christian woman and a blessing
ceremony was held in the Church. It is submitted that he
approached the Village Officer, Kanjiramkulam, for a Caste
Certificate and the Village Officer insisted for a Suddhi Certificate
and a Gazette notification for the issuance of the Caste Certificate.
The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no dispute to
the fact that Anu was born and raised as a Hindu Nadar and, his
SSLC and other certificates would establish that he belonged to
Hindu Nadar. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that KPSC
cannot enter into a finding regarding fraud by conducting an
enquiry, and that such an enquiry has to be conducted by authority
which issued the caste certificate. Per contra, the learned Standing
Counsel for KPSC, Shri P.C.Sasidharan submitted that a public
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:7:- 2024:KER:80994
notice of reconversion has been issued regarding conversion of Anu
from Christianity and, therefore, no further enquiry is required as to
the caste status of Anu. It is further submitted that, even if Anu
reconverted to Hinduism, it cannot be said that he belonged to a
particular caste of Hindu community as there is no conversion from
caste to caste as the basis of conversion is from religion to religion.
5. Caste is a social construct, while religion is a system of
beliefs or practices focused on worship of the unseen. Religion is
founded on this belief or worship, evolving into an organized
system of principles and practices believed to be ordained by a
creator. Changing religions involves more than a formal act; it
requires moving from one set of beliefs to another. Renouncing a
belief system and embracing another are essential elements of
religious conversion. This process becomes particularly complex
when an individual from a backward or reserved community
converts to another religion, and even more so if they later revert
to their original faith, prompting the question of whether they still
belong to their initial subcategory within the community. Courts
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:8:- 2024:KER:80994
have addressed similar issues on several occasions. We will
examine some precedents before discussing the merits of this case.
6. In S.Rajagopal v. C. M. Armugam & Ors. [(1969) 1 SCR
254], the Apex Court considered the issue of a Scheduled Caste
member who had converted to Christianity and later reconverted to
Hinduism. The Apex Court held that an Adi Dravida caste member,
upon converting to Christianity, ceased to belong to the Adi Dravida
caste and on reconverting to Hindu religion, for professing it again
he has to prove that he has once again become a member of the
Adi Dravida caste. The point that is referred to in this case is that
on reconversion, such a person will have to prove that he has been
accepted as a member of his original caste.
7. In C.M.Arumugam v. S.Rajgopal and Others [(1976) 1
SCC 863], the Apex Court again considered the issue of
reconversion to the original religion and opined that, upon
reconversion to Hinduism, such a person once again becomes a
member of the caste into which he was born provided the members
of the caste accept him as a member.
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:9:- 2024:KER:80994
8. In S. Anbalagan v. B. Devarajan and Others [(1984) 2
SCC 112], the Apex Court held that for reconversion to Hinduism,
no particular ceremony such as expiatory rites need to be
performed unless the practice of the caste makes it necessary and
further opined that on reconversion, he becomes a member of his
original caste provided that he has been accepted by that
community.
9. In Kailash Sonkar v. Smt. Maya Devi [(1984) 2 SCC
91], the Apex Court again considered the issue of reconversion and
the revival of caste through reconversion, reiterating the law
established earlier.
10. In Kodikunnil Suresh alias J.Monian v. N.S. Saji
Kumar and Others [(2011) 6 SCC 430], the Apex Court
considered an issue of reconversion to Hinduism from Christianity
and opined that the acceptance of members from the Scheduled
Caste community is sufficient to hold that such persons belong to
the Scheduled Caste community.
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:10:- 2024:KER:80994
11. In K.P. Manu v. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for
Verification of Community Certificate [(2015) 4 SCC 1], the
Apex Court considered the principles related to conversion and
reconversion. It is appropriate to refer to the relevant principles as
follows:
(i) There must be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste
that has been recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,
1950;
(ii) There has been reconversion to the original religion to which the
parents and earlier generations had belonged; and
(iii) there has to be evidence establishing the acceptance by the
community.
12. On a conspectus reading of the precedents as above, the
following proposition of law emerges:
1. On conversion, a person ceases to become a
member of a religion to which he originally belongs
and he ceases to have the benefit of the caste
status he originally had.
2. On reconversion, such a person automatically is not
entitled to claim caste status and there must be
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:11:- 2024:KER:80994
evidence to prove that he has been accepted by the
original community and he is treated as a member
of the original caste.
13. Three points are required to be considered in an enquiry
related to the caste status of Anu.
i. Whether Anu had been converted from Hinduism to
Christianity?
ii. If Anu had been converted to Christianity at any
point of time, whether he has been reconverted to
Hinduism?
iii. If Anu had been reconverted, had the Hindu Nadar
community accepted him as a full member of the
community?
14. The nature of the enquiry described above should have
been conducted by the authority that issued the caste certificate. It
is important to consider Anu's explanation regarding the
circumstances under which the Gazette notification was issued
during this enquiry. Such a factual investigation is crucial in this
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:12:- 2024:KER:80994
case, given the allegations of fraud against Anu. Fraud here is
alleged based on factual elements, meaning there must be
foundational facts establishing fraudulent intent. Fraud involves
intentional deception by someone who seeks to mislead another
relying on their representation. Fraud invalidates the entire
transaction, rendering all actions that follow it null and void.
15. The primary question is whether KPSC itself should
investigate allegations of fraud committed against revenue officials
who issued the caste certificate. While KPSC does have the
authority to cancel a recommendation based on misrepresentation
and fraud, it cannot unilaterally determine that the certificate was
fraudulently obtained from another agency or authority. As a
constitutional agency entrusted with recruitment and selection,
KPSC has no power under the Constitution or any law to conduct an
enquiry into an applicant's caste status. If KPSC suspects that an
applicant obtained a caste certificate through fraud or
misrepresentation, it must refer the matter to the issuing authority,
which alone is responsible for investigating caste status and any
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:13:- 2024:KER:80994
potential fraud or misrepresentation. This means KPSC cannot
independently nullify an individual's caste status.
After reviewing the records and the Tribunal's order, we find
that both the KPSC and the Tribunal made a serious error in
determining the petitioner's caste status. It is undisputed that the
petitioner, Anu, was born and raised as a Hindu Nadar, and all his
school and caste certificates reflect this. None of these caste
certificates have been annulled by the issuing or any higher
authority. There is a clear legal distinction between fraud on facts
and fraud on a court or authority. Fraud on facts involves
misrepresentation or deceit that generally occurs between private
parties and pertains to specific details or circumstances. In
contrast, fraud on a court or authority directly targets the judicial
or administrative process itself. In such cases, it is the Court or
authority that has the exclusive competence to determine the
nature and extent of the fraud committed upon it. This distinction is
significant because fraud against a Court or authority compromises
the integrity of its proceedings, and only the affected authority can
effectively assess and address the fraud's impact on its
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:14:- 2024:KER:80994
proceedings. Thus, we conclude that KPSC is not empowered to
determine an applicant's caste status. Instead of referring the
matter to the revenue authority or relevant agency, KPSC took it
upon itself to make a decision regarding the petitioner's caste.
Therefore, we set aside Ext.P7 impugned order as well as KPSC's
order, dated 29/01/2018, canceling the advice and appointment
[Ext.P1(A15)]. However, this does not prevent KPSC from referring
the matter to the competent authority for an enquiry into the
petitioner's caste status.
The original petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
ms
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:15:- 2024:KER:80994
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 241/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.195/2018 DATED 07.02.2018
BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH AT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF ADVICE NO.KLR
III(3)1448/12 DATED 15.7.2015.
Exhibit P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE
APPLICANT DATED 9.4.2012.
Exhibit P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF ADVICE NO.C.V.
(1)1700/2012(3) DATED 25.2.2015.
Exhibit P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.J.O.B.-82/2015 DATED
6.3.2015 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL
PRISON, KANNUR.
Exhibit P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF PSC RANKED LIST NO.17/2015/DOC
DATED 20.1.2015.
Exhibit P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.SS 1(2)
489/15 DATED 13.1.2017.
Exhibit P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF SSLC WITH REG.
NO.667285 OF THE APPLICANT.
Exhibit P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF SSLC OF THE
FATHER OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED FROM THE
P.K.S.HIGH SCHOOL, KANJIRAMKULAM.
Exhibit P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SSLC OF THE
MOTHER OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED FROM THE GOVT.
HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, KANJIRAMKULAM.
Exhibit P1(A10) TRUE COPY OF NON-CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE
NO.167/2012 DATED 14.3.2012 FROM THE VILLAGE
OFFICE, KANJIRAMKULAM.
Exhibit P1(A11) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.618/14 DATED
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:16:- 2024:KER:80994
11.11.2011, CATEGORY NO.394/2011.
Exhibit P1(A12) TRUE COPY OF THE PSC NOTIFICATION DATED
11.11.2011, CATEGORY NO.394/2011.
Exhibit P1(A13) TRUE COPY OF PSC NOTIFICATION DATED 28.3.2012
CATEGORY NO.01/2012.
Exhibit P1(A14) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.8.2017 OF THIS
HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.NO.185/17.
Exhibit P1(A15) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. SS1(2) 489/15 DATED
29.1.2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1(A16) TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 7.2.2018 TO
THE SECRETARY PSC.
Exhibit P2 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION
FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT DATED
13.3.2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TVM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT
FILED BY RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN THE O.A.NO.195
OF 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TVM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT
FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT DATED
06.04.2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TVM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE O.A.NO.195 OF
2018 DATED 12.06.2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TVM BENCH.
Exhibit P5(A17) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.9/2013/BCDD
DATED 30.8.2013.
Exhibit P5(A18) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.55/2015/SCSTDD
DATED 4.4.2012.
Exhibit P5(A19) TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT V.E.NUMBER
33/2015 DATED 17.10.2016, OF THE VIGILANCE &
O.P.(KAT).No.241/2019 -:17:- 2024:KER:80994
SECURITY OFFICER, VIGILANCE WING, KERALA PSC.
Exhibit P5(A) THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF STAY DATED
12.6.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TVM
BENCH.
EXHIBIT P6 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION DATED OCTOBER 2018 FILED BY THE
ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TVM BENCH.
Exhibit P6(R5)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.8.2014.
Exhibit P6(R5)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS THE
APPLICANT IN OA 195/18 RECEIVES PRIZE FROM
THE CHURCH.
Exhibit P6(R5)(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS THE
APPLICANT IN OA 195/18 ENGAGE IN MARRIAGE AT
CHURCH ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN CUSTOM.
Exhibit P6(R5)(D) TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF
OF 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA 185/17 OF HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P6(R5)(E) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
11.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE
APPLICANT IN OA 195/18.
EXHIBIT P7 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
27.05.2019 IN O.A.NO.195/2018 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
