JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner's grievance is about Exts.P13 & P14 proceedings, by which his request for issuance of community certificate as Hindu – Pallan was rejected by the third respondent and confirmed in appeal by the second respondent. The essential facts are as under;

The petitioner's father belongs to Hindu -Pallan community. His mother is a Hindu-Ezhava. In the petitioner's school records, his caste status is recorded as Hindu-Pallan. From childhood onwards, the petitioner had been residing in Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District. He was issued Exts.P3 to P11 community certificates by the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, certifying that he belongs to the Hindu-Pallan community, covered by the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates) Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short). The petitioner's father was employed in the BSNL. He availed VRS in the year 31.01.2020. Prior to that, petitioner’s family shifted residence to his mother’s native place in Kollam. Thereafter, the application for issue of community certificate, on which Ext.P13 was passed, was filed before the Tahsildar, Kollam/third respondent. The application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is born to an inter-caste married couple and his mother belongs to Ezhava Community. Further, petitioner is following the customs and rituals of Hindu-Ezhava community. Even though petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext.P13, that was rejected by Ext.P14.

2. Adv. Varun C.Vijay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned decisions are ex facie illegal, as they were passed without considering the crucial fact that, from birth onwards, the petitioner had grown up as a Hindu-Pallan. This fact stands proved by the entries in the admission register and the caste certificates issued over the years. It is submitted that, merely because a person has married from a different community or has shifted his residence, his community status will not get altered. To bolster the contention, reliance was placed on the decision in Jyothsna A v. Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm and others [2022 (1) KHC 401] and reference made to the following extract from the Writings and Speeches of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar (Volume-I).

“Varna and Caste are two very different concepts. Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth-while caste is based on the principle of each according to his birth.”

3. Finally, it is contended that the findings in Ext.P13 are entirely based on Ext.P18 report submitted by the Village Officer, Nedumpana. Attention is drawn to Ext.P18 to point out that complete absence of any adverse observation in the report, other than an observation that the petitioner's wife is also from Hindu-Ezhava community. Therefore, the factual findings in Ext.P13 are faulty and Ext.P14 was issued noticing this crucial defect.

4. Refuting the contentions, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that Tahsildars are not having the know-how or competence to decide community status of a person. On the other hand, the KIRTADS is having the expertise. Being so, this Court should not venture into the dispute as to the community status of the petitioner, since it is for the petitioner to prove his community status.

5. In reply, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates) Act 1996, which provides for issue of community certificate does not envisage an enquiry by the scrutiny committee of the KIRTADS when there is no dispute regarding a person's community status.

6. The fact that in petitioner's community status is shown as Hindu-Pallan in his school records is not disputed. That, the petitioner had lived in Kanayanannur Taluk from his childhood upto 2019 is also assailed. Exts.P4 to P11 issued by the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, the competent authority, certifies the petitioner to be a member of Hindu-P