The eligibility for a 'Non-Creamy Layer Certificate' is determined by the specific provisions of the applicable rules and the evidence presented, including caste classification and occupation.

JUDGMENT :

Claims for issue of ‘Non-Creamy Layer’ certifications are nothing new to this Court – with several such being impelled ubiquitously.

2. However, sometimes, ingenuity knows no bounds – in a manner of speaking – when applicants clothe such claims with interpretations and facets that are truly inventive.

3. The petitioner impugns Exts.P9 and P12 orders issued by the 4th respondent – Tahsildar and 3rd respondent – Sub Collector respectively, whereby, she has been denied a ‘Non-Creamy Layer Certificate’, finding that even as per the Genealogical Study conducted, she is liable to be included only in the community of ‘Hindu Naickan’ and not ‘Tuluva Naickan’. She says that even if this is true, it would be no consequence, as far as her case is concerned because, her father is a mason; and therefore, that notwithstanding whether she is categorized as a ‘Naickan’ or a ‘Tuluva Naickan’, she would stand excluded from the rigour of the notification dealing with the ‘Creamy Layer’ categorization. She, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set aside.

4. Sri.Reji Kumar R. -learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that, even if his client’s caste is taken to be ‘Hindu Naickan’; since her father belongs to a family which is involved in the traditional work of masonry, and thus being called ‘Masons’, the provision of Annexure B of Ext.P6 notification would apply, thus rendering the Rules of exclusion applicable to her. He added that, when these facts are uncontested, Exts.P9 and P12 are rendered erroneous because, they have proceeded on the misdirected assumption that since his client is not a ‘Tuluva Naickan’ – which is one of the ‘OBC’ communities included in Tamil Nadu from where the said community originated – she would stand excluded from the benefit of Ext.P6 notification. He thus reiteratingly prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.

5. Sri.Robin Raj – learned Special Government Pleader, however, refuted the afore submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguing that the Genealogical Study conducted, namely, Ext.P2 – which the petitioner also relies upon – has found that her ancestors belong to Tamil Nadu, to the community of ‘Hindu Naickan’, which is not included in the ‘OBC’ list, statutorily approved by the Central Government and that only ‘Tuluva Naickan’, which is so included therein. He explained that, however, ‘Tuluva Naickan’ is not included in the ‘OBC’ category in Kerala and therefore, that Exts.P6 and P9 cannot be found to be at fault. He added that, in any event, the petitioner cannot obtain any benefit even as per Ext.P6, because it is conceded that her parents retired from service as ‘Class B Officers’ of the Government of Kerala, thus being completely disentitled to any benefit, even as per it.

6. In reply, Sri.Reji Kumar pointed out that the caste of ‘Tuluva Naickan’ is included in the ‘OBC’ list of Kerala and that, therefore, his client is entitled to be included as such because, her parents belong to such community. He thus prayed that the alternative plea of his client, that she be considered as ‘Tuluva Naickan’, be allowed by this Court through an appropriate declaration.

7. I have considered the afore rival submissions very carefully and have also gone through the various materials available on record.

8. I must say at the outset that, even going by the document relied upon by the petitioner, namely Ext.P1, her father’s caste name has been shown to be ‘Tuluva Naickan’; while that of his father to be ‘Manicken’. The Vigilance Officer has, thereafter, settled Ext.P2, wherein, with respect to the father of the petitioner, he has found that her father’s parents were involved in the traditional calling of masonry and that the mentioning of his caste as ‘Tuluva Naickan’ in Ext.P1 is an error or a mistake. It has thus been concluded therein that the petitioner’s father is a ‘Hindu Naickan’, while her mother an ‘Ezhava’; and after finding so, it concludes that the school record