The main legal point established is that the initial appointment into a higher Class/Group need not be by promotion or deputation, and can include direct recruitment, as per Ext.P12 judgment.

JUDGMENT :

The 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the 1st petitioner and they impugn Ext.P3 order, whereby, the former has been denied the benefit of a ‘Non Creamy Layer Certificate’, on the ground that the latter among them, as also his wife – the mother of the 2nd petitioner – joined service as Class II Officers, along with her husband, the 1st petitioner.

2. Smt.Malavika K. -learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that Ext.P3 has been issued by the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar without proper application of mind and without adverting to the Statutory Scheme because, as Ext.P6 would show, the 2nd petitioner’s mother did not join a Class II post directly, but only after having served as an Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in an Aided School. She argued that when this fact remains uncontroverted, the declarations is Ext.P12 judgment would come to play, wherein, it has been settled that the term ‘gets into Class I/Group A’ – as available in the Statutory Scheme -cannot mean that it should only be by promotion or deputation – which is to mean that it can also be through a Direct Recruitment process. She contended that since when the mother of the 2nd petitioner was initially appointed in Class III/Group C, namely as a UPSA, the Tahsildar has acted in gross error, in having issued Ext.P3. She thus prayed that the said order be set aside.

3. Sri.P.S.Appu – learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that the declarations in Ext.P12 judgment would not apply to the petitioners at all because, contrary to the facts noticed by the learned Judge therein, Ext.P6 would establish that the mother of the 2nd petitioner -who is the wife of the 1st, was directly recruited to a Class II Post as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) in Chemistry, on 13.06.2018. He argued that, therefore, she can only be construed to have been directly recruited to a Class II Post; and hence that the rigour of Ext.P8 Government Order stand against the petitioners.

4. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader without further scrutiny. This is because, as rightly argued by Smt.Malavika K., while dealing with the case of a father, who had entered Class I/Group A post, a learned Judge of this Court in Ext.P12 declared without doubt as under, adverting to the Government Order, bearing No.81/09/SCSTDD dated 26.09.2009:

9. The terms used in Ext.P11 G.O. is “gets into Class I/Group A”. Therefore the appointment into a higher Class/Group need not be by promotion or deputation. In the case of the petitioner, the petitioner's father was appointed in Indo Swiss Project, which is a Government Project. It is evident from Ext.P12 that the said project was subsequently brought under Kerala Livestock Development and Milk Marketing Board Ltd. which is a Government of Kerala undertaking.

10. The facts as evident from the pleadings and arguments would therefore amply show that the Entry Cadre of petitioner's father was neither Group A or Group B. His Entry Cadre is to be taken as Veterinary Surgeon in the pay scale of Rs.445- 835. The said Cadre would not fall under either Class I/Group A or Class II/Group B. Therefore denial of Non Creamy layer Certificate to the petitioner on that ground cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

5. It is without contest that the afore judgment has been accepted by the Government and that the directions therein have been complied with.

6. Coming to the facts of this, the 2nd petitioner’s mother concededly joined service as a UPSA, which, by every definition and as expressly admitted, is included as a Class III/Group C Post. Ext.P12 Government Order renders it without ambiguity that, in the case of children of parents, both of whom are Class II officers directly recruited, they would stand excluded from the benefit of being granted ‘Non Creamy Layer Certificate’.

7. In the case at hand, though the 1st petitioner is conceded to be a Class II Officer, who was directly recruited, when it come