K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether children born out of inter-caste married couple could claim the status of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the benefit of reservation in admission to educational institutions and in public employment on the mere fact that one of their parents belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is the question that is posed for our consideration.

2. We find that what has caused anxiety and even panic is the reluctance to accept the reality and the possible ramifications which such an adjudication might bring in in the community texture. Identification of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes in a State or Union Territory is a presidential prerogative as gatherable from Arts.341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. Nobody other than a person who is member of a caste/tribe can claim to be a scheduled caste or tribe. Therefore claim of a person born of intercaste marriage that he is a member of one or the other caste requires an adjudication. If he is found as a member of the caste or tribe, he is entitled to be recognised as such. If not, he is disentitled from making a claim. Therefore the issue is whether there is a mechanism for adjudging such claim and rights and how far the working of such machinery is satisfactory.

3. Petitioners in W.P.C. No.2483 of 2005 sought a direction to the Tahsildar to issue a community certificate stating that the second petitioner belongs to scheduled caste Kanakka community placing reliance on G.O.Ms.11/77 dated 25.1.1977. When the matter came up for hearing it was referred to a Division Bench. The Bench felt that the impact of the Government order G.O.Ms 11/77 dated 25.1.1977 be examined by a larger Bench in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhury ((2003) 8 SCC 204) and referred the matter to a larger Bench vide order dated 9.2.2005. While so, the Government issued G.O.(Ms) No. 11/05/SCSTDD dated 22.3.2005 cancelling earlier order dated 25.1.1977. G.O(Ms) No.11/2005 was later clarified by the Government, vide G.O.(Ms) No. 25/2005/SCSTDD dated 20.6.2005. We have therefore to examine the claims of the petitioners in the light of the above mentioned Government orders and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Punit Rai’s case, supra ((2003) 8 SCC 204) and in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 244) and on the basis of the other decided cases.

4. Constitution of India provides that all citizens of India shall have equality of status and of opportunity. Art.15(4) of the Constitution however provides that State is competent to make special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Art.16(4) of the Constitution enables the State to make provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. Art.341 (2) authorises the Parliament by law to include or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe. Similar is the provision contained in Art.342 in relation to scheduled tribes. The object of Art.341 as well as Art.342 is to identify the castes, races or tribes which shall for the purpose of the Constitution be deemed to be, as the case may be, scheduled castes or scheduled tribe and therefore entitled to the protective rights conferred by the Constitution. Such castes, races, tribes or tribal have been included in the notification issued under the Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament.

5. State of Kerala had extended various educational concessions to children born to inter-caste married couples. By virtue of the Government order No. J4/23203/60 dated 24.6.1960 they used to get such concessions provided their mother belonged