SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
R. Unnikrishnan and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
V.K. Mahanudevan and Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3468 OF 2007
WITH
State of Kerala and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
V.K. Mahanudevan and Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3469 OF 2007
AND
State of Kerala and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
V.K. Ananthan Unnikrishnan and Anr. . – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3470 OF 2007
AND
State of Kerala and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Prem Kumar and Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24775 of 2013)
Decided On : 10-01-2014
AIR 1995 Ker 337 - Referred
(b) Administration of Justice - Binding precedent - Law favours finality of judgment of a competent court - Public interest is against individuals being vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation - Even erroneous decisions can operate as res-judicata unless obtained by fraud - Judgment of a competent court which has attained finality cannot be reopened unless the same was alleged to have been obtained by fraud. (Para 15, 16, 19 to 21)
AIR 1961 SC 1457; AIR 1953 SC 65; AIR 1966 SC 1061; (2013) 5 SCC 252; (1970) 1 SCC 613; (2007) 4 SCC 221; (2008) 9 SCC 54 - Relied upon
(c) Caste Certificate - Confusion over Thandan and Ezhuvas and Thiyyas as Scheduled caste - Supreme Court removing the distinction and declaring all the three as Scheduled caste - Presidential order 2007 finally notifying that Ezhuvas and Thiyyas are not SC - Order prospective - Cannot affect the respondent whose case was decided bona fide in 1987. (Para 33)
(2001) 1 SCC 4; (2012) 8 SCC 430; (2006) 7 SCC 501 - Relied upon
(1994) 1 SCC 359 - Referred
Facts of the case:
Respondent V.K. Mahanudevan applied for a caste certificate claiming to be a scheduled caste. The Tehsildar reported against issue of such certificate to the respondent. However, the High Court allowed the petition of the respondent directing issuance of the certificate. Accordingly SC certificate was issued to hum and he was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer.
Much later the High Court seized with numerous petitions regarding caste certificates, directed re-scrutiny of all such certificates. Accordingly the respondent's certificate came to be cancelled.
After a few more rounds of litigation the High Court ruled that the High Court's earlier decision had attained finality and could not be reopened.
State is in appeal against this order.
Respondent's case which had attained finality could not be reopened.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24775 of 2013.
2. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals which shall stand disposed of by this common order. But before we formulate the questions that fall for determination the factual matrix in which the same arise need to be summarised for a proper appreciation of the controversy.
3. Respondent-V.K. Mahanudevan in Civil Appeal No.3468 of 2007 applied to Tehsildar, Alathur in the State of Kerala for grant of a Scheduled Caste Certificate on the basis that he was a 'Thandan' which was a notified Scheduled Caste. The Tehsildar held an enquiry and found that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community and reported the matter to the Director, Scheduled Caste Development Department, who in turn forwarded the case to Director, Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, ('KIRTADS 'for short) for investigation and report.
4. Aggrieved by the denial of the certificate the respondent filed O.P.No.9216 of 1986 before the High Court of Kerala which was disposed of by the High Court in terms of its order dated 25th February, 1987 with a direction to the Tehsildar concerned to issue a caste certificate in favour of the said respondent. A certificate was accordingly issued in his favour. It is common ground that the respondent was appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer under a special recruitment scheme for SC/ST candidates.
5. Long after the certificate had been issued in favour of the respondent and his appointment as an Assistant Executive Engineer in theState service, a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kerala Pattika Jathi Samrekshana Samithy v. State AIR 1995 Ker 337 observed that a large number of applications for change of caste name from 'Thiyya' to 'Thandan' had been received pursuant to The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 and ordered that all such certificates as were corrected on the basis of such applications after 27th July, 1977 ought to be scrutinized by a Scrutiny Committee. The High Court observed:
"...The filing of a large number of applications for correction of the name of caste from Ezhava/Thiyya to Thandan alleging one and the same reason immediately after inclusion of Thandan community as Scheduled Caste in the 1976 order can prima facie be considered only as a concerted attempt on the part of Section of Ezhavas/Thiyyas to take advantage of the benefits of Scheduled Castes as alleged in the counter affidavit of the first respondent and asserted by the petitioner. It cannot be easily believed that if a person was really a Thandan and as such a Scheduled Caste, his caste would have been noted as Ezhava or Thiyya in the school records.
It cannot also be believed easily that in large number of cases for no reason whatsoever the same type of mistake was committed allowed to be on record till Thandan community was included in the list of Scheduled Castes. As such taking a serious view of the entire problem we would hold that in all cases where certificates have been issued on and after 27-7-1977 the date of 1976 order correcting the name of Caste from Ezhava/Thiyya to Thandan and other cases where certificates have been issued changing the Caste into a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe such certificates issued are liable to be declared as of doubtful validly, till they are scrutinised by the scrutiny Committee to be constituted by the first respondent as per the directions we propose to issue in that regard..."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Pursuant to the above directions of the High Court the caste certificate issued in favour of the respondent also came under scrutiny. In the course of scrutiny, it was found that the reports submitted by KIRTADS and relied upon by the High Court while allowing O.P. No.9216 of1986 was erroneous and that the respondent actually belonged to Ezhuva community which
Kerala Pattika Jathi Samrekshana Samithy v. State
Palaghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi v. State of Kerala
Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee
State of West Bengal v. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee
Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P.
Raju Ramsingh Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar
State of Maharashtra v. Milind
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.