SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.Paul Raj – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar – Respondent
WP 15193/2016



Advocates:
['M/S P SARAVANAN', '', 'T WILLSON EASTER RAJ', 'S P PARVADHRAJ ARUMUGAM', 'J YESOTHA SARAVANAN', 'GOVT ADVOCATE']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.11.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.15193 of 2016

&

W.M.P.Nos.13240 & 13241 of 2016

S.Paul Raj,

S/o P. Susai (Late)

E.B. Quarters Backside,

Salem Camp,

Mettur Taluk

Salem District

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Tahsildar

Mettur Taluk

Salem District

2. The District Collector,

Salem District.

... Respondents

(R2 Suo Motu impleaded Vide order dated 20.09.2021)

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records from the Respondent's

proceedings vide order O.Mu.8147/14A5 dated 19.06.2015, and

quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to issue

the inter-caste marriage certificate to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanan

For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash

Government Advocate

O R D E R

The petitioner possesses the educational qualification

of Bachelor of Electrical & Electronics Engineering. The

petitioner belongs to Christian Adi-Dravida. The 1st

respondent has given a community certificate to the petitioner

as Backward Class as per G.O.Ms.1564, Social Welfare

Department dated 30.07.1985. The petitioner married one girl,

namely, G.Amutha, who studied up to Master of Physical

Education. She belongs to Hindu Arunthathiyar community. The

marriage between the petitioner and the said Amutha was

solemnized on 02.03.2009 at Thippi Reddy Thirumana Mandapam,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kolathur Mettur (Taluk), Salem District. The wife of the

petitioner was given the Community Certificate as Scheduled

Caste as per SI.No.5 of SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 1976.

2. Under these circumstances, the petitioner relying

on G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms

(Personnel-P) Department dated 28.12.1976, has submitted an

application for grant of inter-caste marriage certificate for

the purpose of availing the benefits of priority in public

employments.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on

the said G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 28.12.1976 and contended that the

Government Order says that "Where one of the spouses belongs

to SC/ST, then inter-caste marriage certificate has to be

issued in favour of the petitioner”. In the present case, the

petitioner was issued with the community certificate as

'Backward Caste' and his wife was issued with the community

certificate as 'Scheduled Caste' and therefore, it is an

inter-caste marriage and accordingly, the petitioner is

entitled to get inter-caste marriage certificate for the

purpose of availing the benefits including priority in public

employment.

4. The learned Government Advocate contended that the

Government has issued clarification that conversion of

religion would not entail a person to get an inter-caste

marriage certificate.

5. In this regard, the clarification was issued by the

Government in letter No.235, Social Welfare Department dated

21.07.1997. As per the said clarification, change of religion

could not be a ground to grant inter-caste marriage

certificate. Relying on the said clarification letter, the

learned Government counsel reiterated that the case of the

petitioner was rightly rejected. Even in the impugned

order, it is stated that, as per the inquiry report received

from the Revenue Inspector, Mettur, the petitioner S.Paulraj

as well as his wife Smt.G.Amutha by birth belongs to Christian

Adi-Dravidar and Hindu Arunthathiyar community, respectively.

Therefore, the inter-caste marriage certificate cannot be

granted.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Soosai

Etc. Vs. Union of India and others – 1986 AIR 733, delivered a

judgment on 30.09.1985 and made an observation that "The

expression Scheduled Caste is defined

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top