Back
Rules Qualifies for
The has delivered a significant ruling, holding that a marriage between persons of different religions is entitled to the same benefits as an under the State's reservation policy. Justice Harisankar V. Menon directed the of a farm employee who had been appointed under the "" (മിശ്ര വിവാഹിത) category but faced resistance because she and her husband belonged to different faiths.
A Marriage Across Faiths and the Reservation Maze
The petitioner, Jisha Thomas, a Christian from the Roman Catholic community, married Nishu Soman, who is a Hindu. In , she received an appointment as a farm employee under the 4th respondent, the Principal Agricultural Officer, under the reservation category for mixed marriages. However, she was required to produce a certificate supporting her claim.
Ms. Thomas initially submitted a certificate from the Tahsildar, Vaikom, dated , which certified her marriage as an "." When the employer insisted on a more recent certificate, she applied again. This time, the Tahsildar initially rejected her application, stating that since the couple belonged to different religions, the marriage could not be considered an inter-caste union. Subsequently, a fresh certificate was issued recording that her husband belonged to the Hindu religion under the Pulaya category, while she remained a Christian. Yet, the employer still refused to accept it.
With her appointment hanging in the balance, Ms. Thomas approached the High Court. In an on , the Court directed the employer to accept the certificate provisionally and allow her to take charge, subject to the final outcome. She joined duty, but her appointment was never regularised.
State's Reliance on the Village Office Manual
The respondents, represented by Government Pleader , argued that the certificates produced only showed an "inter-caste married person" and were not sufficient for the reservation benefit. They placed heavy reliance on , which, they contended, permits the issuance of an " certificate" only for marriages within the same religion. A marriage across religions, they argued, fell outside this definition.
Court's Reasoning: Substance Over Form
Justice Menon disagreed with the State's narrow interpretation. The Court observed that the very category under which Ms. Thomas was appointed—"മിശ്ര വിവാഹിത" or —did not restrict itself to inter-caste unions within the same religion. The certificates, both from and the later one, clearly established that Ms. Thomas is a Christian and her husband is a Hindu.
"In my opinion, as already noticed, since the petitioner's appointment is under the category of 'മിശ്ര വിവാഹിത', the benefits thereunder require to be extended on the basis of Exts.P5 as well as P8 since those certificates certify that the petitioner belongs to the Christian religion and her husband belongs to the Hindu religion,"
the Court held.
The Judge further underscored the principle:
"In the opinion of this Court, an
also requires to be taken note of while considering the entitlement pursuant to the benefits considered and extended pursuant to Ext.P4 order."
Key Observations
The Court made it clear that the purpose of the reservation category is to support couples who have married across social divides, whether caste or religion. The rigid reading of could not be used to deny a benefit that the appointment letter itself contemplated.
The Final Order
Disposing of the , Justice Menon directed the 5th respondent (the Senior Agricultural Officer) to regularise Ms. Thomas's appointment on the basis of the certificates she had produced. The Court also ordered that all consequential benefits arising from be extended to her forthwith.
This judgment affirms that for mixed marriages are not confined to inter-caste unions alone but extend to inter-religion marriages as well, aligning with the broader objective of social integration.
