Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by the Secretary & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Dineesh K.M., S/o. Muraleedharan K.K. & Ors. - Respondents
O.P.(KAT) No. 406 of 2023
Decided On : 05-09-2024
For the Petitioner: P.C. Sasidharan, SC for KPSC.
For the Respondent: Varun C. Vijay, Divya Chandran, Smt. Vineetha B., SR. GP.
IMPORTANT POINT
A valid certificate from the revenue authority can establish OBC status without the need for a Gazette notification, especially in cases of caste discrepancies.
Headnote:
Reservation - Caste Discrepancy - Article 227 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding caste certification and reservation eligibility, concluding that the absence of a Gazette notification did not invalidate the applicant's claim to OBC status based on a valid certificate from the revenue authority.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent sought to challenge a ranked list that did not recognize him as an OBC candidate, despite his claims and supporting certificates. The Administrative Tribunal ruled in his favor, leading to an appeal by the Kerala Public Service Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 1st respondent's certificate from the revenue authority was sufficient to establish his OBC status, and the insistence on a Gazette notification was unwarranted. The Tribunal's decision was upheld.
Issues: Whether the 1st respondent was entitled to OBC reservation despite discrepancies in his caste documentation and the lack of a Gazette notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a valid certificate from the revenue authority suffices for claiming OBC status, and the requirement for a Gazette notification was not applicable in this case.
Result: The petition was dismissed, upholding the Administrative Tribunal's order.
JUDGMENT :
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
The 1st respondent filed O.A.No.1719 of 2020 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. He sought to set aside Annexure A5 ranked list to the extent it failed to show him as an other backward community candidate. Consequential reliefs including his advise for appointment were also sought. The Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application. It was, however, directed further that rights of the 2nd respondent, who was already appointed, should not be affected. Kerala Public Service Commission, aggrieved by that order, filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 were applicants for selection to the post of Attender Grade II in Homoeopathy Department in Kottayam District. In Annexure A5 ranked list, the 1st respondent was placed at 14 and the 2nd respondent was placed at 18. The 1st respondent claimed reservation available to other backward communities. In his profile, he claimed that he belongs to other backward community and produced Annexure A2 non-creamy layer certificate. His caste was shown in Annexure A2 as Pattariyas. The caste name shown in his SSLC is Padmasaliya. The petitioner was asked to explain the discrepancy, consequent to which he produced Annexure A3 wherein the Village Officer certified that the petitioner belonged to Hindu-Padmasaliya (Pattarya) community.
4. The ranked list was approved on 28.04.2020. However, requiring clarity in relation to the claim of the petitioner for reservation, the 2nd petitioner addressed the 1st petitioner. Annexure A8 is the said letter. Later the ranked list was published, wherein the petitioner was denied benefit of OBC reservation. The stand of the petitioners as reflected in Annexure A8 and also from the reply-statement is that a Gazette notification correcting the caste name of the petitioner was necessary to extend him the benefit of reservation. Instead of Gazette notification, the 1st respondent produced Annexure A3 certificate alone and therefore he was denied the benefit available to OBC.
5. The petitioners produced Ext.R2(b) Government order dated 28.05.2020 including Padmasali community also in the list of OBCs. A Gazette notification in this regard was issued only on 14.08.2022. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners would submit that having the ranked list been approved as early as on 28.04.2020, the 1st respondent could not claim the benefit of Ext.R2(b) Government order dated 28.05.2020 or the subsequent Gazette notification.
6. Certainly, it is within the powers of the Kerala Public Service Commission to determine whether the application submitted by a candidate is valid and it satisfies the requirements of the notification. See: Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese [ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523], Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar [ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 241] and Rangaswamy v. Public Service Commission [1982 KLT 574].
7. The question here is concerning a different aspect. The 1st respondent submitted application claiming him to be a member of Pattariya community. The name of his community mentioned in his SSLC is Padmasali. If the 1st respondent has a claim that his caste name was mistakenly stated in his SSLC, what is the procedure enabling him to get the mistake corrected? The contention of the petitioners is that a Gazette notification in that regard should be produced. They place reliance in that regard on the general directions in that regard notified in the official Gazette.
8. Annexure R2(a) contained the instructions issued regarding submission of certificates by candidates claiming to be members of backward classes. Clause (g)(ii) reads as follows :
9. What is thereby insisted on is production of a certificate from the revenue authority. It is specified that no Gazette notification
