Back
2013 Supreme(Ker) 638
High Court of Kerala
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
A. Lavya Minor represented by Her Father& Natural Guardian Aringalayan Manoharan @ Manoj
Versus
Director of Medical Education & Others
W.P. (C). No. 19867 of 2013 (G)
Decided On : 07-11-2013
For the Petitioner:G. Krishnakumar, D.R. Balakrishna Prabhu, Mrs. P.M. Naseema, K.A. Ani Joseph, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, R3, R6 & R7 Mrs. Lalyvincent, Special Government Pleader, R2, P.B. Suresh Kumar, Senior Advocate, Leo George, R4, P. Sreekumar, Standing Counsel, R5, R.S. Kalkura, M.S. Kalesh, Mrs. A.V. Priya, Harish Gopinath, Advocates.
The burden of proof on the claimant, the presumption of offspring taking the caste of the father in inter-caste marriages, and the conclusive nature of the report of the Expert Agency in determining the eligibility for reservation as a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate.
Headnote:
Admission - Bachelor of Physiotherapy course - Act 11 of 1996 - The court discussed the provisions of Act 11 of 1996, which provides for issuance and verification of Scheduled Caste & Tribe Certificates. The court highlighted the burden of proof on the claimant, the presumption of offspring taking the caste of the father in inter-caste marriages, and the conclusive nature of the report of the Expert Agency.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the withholding of her admission to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course, claiming reservation as a member of the Pulaya Community based on a Community Certificate issued under Act 11 of 1996. The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations informed the petitioner that her Community Certificate was sent for Anthropological investigation to the Vigilance Officer of the Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies (KIRTADS) for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the legal principles regarding the caste status of offspring of inter-caste marriages, the burden of proof on the claimant, and the conclusive nature of the report of the Expert Agency. The court found that the petitioner's claim of belonging to the Scheduled Caste community was supported by evidence and that the reports of the Expert Agency were not based on sufficient material evidence.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the petitioner's claim for reservation as a member of the Pulaya Community, the authority of the Competent Authority under Act 11 of 1996, and the conclusive nature of the report of the Expert Agency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish their claim of belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The court also emphasized the rebuttable presumption of offspring taking the caste of the father in inter-caste marriages and the conclusive nature of the report of the Expert Agency. The court found that the reports of the Expert Agency lacked sufficient material evidence to rebut the presumption available to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court set aside the reports of the Expert Agency and the order withholding the petitioner's admission, declaring the petitioner eligible for reservation as a Scheduled Caste candidate based on the Community Certificate issued under Act 11 of 1996.
1. The petitioner challenges the withholding of her admission to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course, in the Entrance Examination, the allotment of which is to be done by the 2nd respondent. Admittedly the petitioner was a candidate to the para-medical course, to which she applied in the academic year 2013-14 pursuant to Exhibit P1 Prospectus. She, on the basis of the Community Certificate (Exhibit P3) issued under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as "Act 11 of 1996"] set up a claim of reservation as member of the Pulaya Community. However, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations by Exhibit P8 informed the petitioner that her Community Certificate was scrutinized by the Screening Committee and that the same is sent for Anthropological investigation to the Vigilance Officer of the Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies (KIRTADS) for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
2. The application status of the petitioner was withheld as per Exhibit P9, against which she approached this Court and obtained an interim order for keeping one vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste category, vacant. The petitioner, then, sought for impleadment of the Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Cell, Directorate of KIRTADS, which application was allowed as per order dated 23.08.2013 and the said officer was impleaded as additional respondent No.7. When the matter came up before Court for hearing on 0.10.2013, while the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asserted that the enquiry has not gone beyond what is indicated in the writ petition, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents contended that the Vigilance Officer, the additional 7th respondent, had already prepared and submitted an Anthropological Report dated 08.07.2013 to the concerned authority. On the contention being raised by the petitioner that the said report was prepared behind her back, on 01.10.2013 an order was passed directing the additional 7th respondent to consider the documents produced by the petitioner and file a report after verification of the said documents. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the Vigilance Officer on 03.10.2013. The Vigilance Officer, in purported compliance of the said order, has prepared a subsequent report dated 07.10.2013. The petitioner, by way of amendment, produced the earlier Anthropological Report dated 08.07.2013 as Exhibit P14 and also challenged the same along with Exhibit P16 Anthropological Report dated 07.10.2013.
3. I have heard learned counsel Sri.G.Krishna Kumar, appearing for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader Smt.Laly Vincent, appearing for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously urge that it has been settled by a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court that the caste of an offspring of an inter-caste marriage is that of the father. The petitioner relies on Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary [(2003) 8 SCC 204], Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham and Others [(2012) 1 SCC 333], Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat [(2012) 3 SCC 400] and Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra & Others [(2013) 4 SCC 465]. To substantiate the caste status of the petitioner, reliance is placed on the Scheduled Caste status of her father and to establish her having been brought up in the said caste, reliance has been placed on school records and the Community Certificate issued under Act 11/1996.
5. The petitioner has been shown as belonging to the Religion and Caste "Hindu, Pulaya" in her Secondary School Leaving Certificate (Exhibit P2), the extract of the Upper Primary School Admission Register (Exhibit P5) and the extract of the Admission Register of the High School (Exhibit P17). The caste status of the petitioner's father is evidenced by Exhibit P4 and on the basis of the said documents, the petitioner lays clai
