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