Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MURALEE KRISHNA
Parties : S. Kishor Versus State Of Kerala Represented By Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: K.C. Eldho, S. Bijilal, Hima Joseph, M.R. Alphy George, Advocates. For The Respondents: Princy Xavier, Sr. Govt. Pleader, P.C. Sasidharan, SC, PSC.
Date of Judgment : 29-06-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 46660,
Judgment :-
Anil K. Narendran, J.
1. The applicant in O.A.No.986 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records leading to Ext.P3 order dated 13.02.2026 in O.A.No.986 of 2018 and set aside the same and allow the original application as prayed for. The original application was filed before the Tribunal seeking an order to quash Annexure A9 order No.UFR I (2) 11373/2014/GW dated 27.03.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission and earlier appointment may be given from Annexure A4 ranked list dated 06.12.2005 with No.397/2005/SS IV in appropriate place as the 2nd respondent denied the appointment due to the reason that the applicant did not belong to Hindu Mala Araya Community; to quash Annexure A9 order issued by the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission and appointment shall be made from Annexure A4 ranked list as this Court in the order dated 12.01.2006 in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006 has categorically stated that issuance of appointment orders from the ranked list will be subject to the result of the writ petition; and to quash Annexure A9 order dated 27.03.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission and earlier appointment shall be made out for Annexure A4 ranked list due to the reason that applicant is a person who belongs to Hindu Mala Araya Community and denial of appointment from Annexure A4 ranked list is illegal, arbitrary.
2. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission filed Ext.P2 reply statement, opposing the reliefs sought for in the original application. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal, by Ext.P3 order dated 13.02.2026, dismissed O.A.No.986 of 2018. Paragraphs 8 and 9 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“8. At the time of publishing Annexure A4 ranked list, i.e., on 06.12.2005, the prevalent rule in the case of children of parents from different communities was governed by G.O. (Ms.)No.11/2005/SC/ST/DD dated 22.03.2005 and Circular No.10/2006 issued by the Public Service Commission. Accordingly, in cases where the community of father and mother are different, the community benefit of the father alone could be extended to the candidate. This position changed with the issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.109/2008/ SCSTDD dated 20.11.2008, which was issued following the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C)Nos.2483, 7039, 17317 of 2005 and connected cases in Indira v. State of Kerala [2005 (4) KLT 119]. As per the above Judgment, the children born out of an inter-caste married couple, of which one of the parents is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, can claim the status of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe on proof of the conditions of the acceptance, customary traits and tenets under which such children are brought up. In view of the observations from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Government Order dated 20.11.2008 was issued with a direction that the Competent Authority, who has to issue Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate to the children born out of inter-caste married couple of which one of the parents is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, should ensure that the claimant is subjected to same social disabilities and also following the same customs and traditions and that the community has accepted that person to its fold as such. The Authority to issue the Caste Certificate was also directed to ensure that:
(i) each case shall be examined individually in the light of the existing facts and circumstances;
(ii) the claimant has suffered disabilities -- socially, economically and educationally;
(iii) the society has accepted the claimant to their original fold is one among them and is living in the same social tenet.
9. The applicant was included in Annexure A7 ranked list on the strength of a Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate, which was issued as per the directions contained in the above Government Order dated 20.11.2008. As there was a process of verification involved to ensure whether the claimant has suffered disabilities socially, economically and educationally, and to check whether the society has accepted the claimant into their original fold as one among them and is living in the same social tenet, there is no question of extending the status of the Scheduled Tribe Community to the applicant before any such verification could be carried out. Since such a certificate could not have been issued, at any rate, before 20.11.2008, with regard to the claim of the applicant for Scheduled Tribe status and earlier effective advice, I see nothing wrong in the decision taken by the Public Service Commission in denying the status of Scheduled Tribe Community to the applicant in the earlier selection process. Hence, the claim of the applicant for earlier effective advice does not merit consideration.
The Original Application is accordingly dismissed.”
3. On 02.06.2026, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 2nd respondent and the matter was reserved for judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant contended that Ext.P3 order dated 13.02.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.986 of 2018 is opposed to law and facts of the case. The legal and factual contentions raised by the applicant were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 2nd respondent would contend that the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order dated 13.02.2026 in O.A.No.986 of 2018 is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting an interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
7. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.
8. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
9. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
10. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
11. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the Tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the petitioner-applicant, who is a Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering, had approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.986 of 2018 seeking various reliefs, which have already been referred to hereinbefore in the first paragraph of this judgment. The applicant was aggrieved by the non-consideration of his claim for Schedule Tribe status in Annexure A4 ranked list published by the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department. The said ranked list was brought into force with effect from 06.12.2005. The applicant finds no place in Annexure A4 ranked list. In Note I of the said ranked list, it is stated that the result in respect of the applicant, who is Serial No.161, is withheld.
13. The document marked as Annexure A1 is a copy of the third page of the SSLC Certificate of the applicant, wherein it is stated that the applicant belongs to Hindu Mala Araya Caste. Annexure A2 is a certificate dated 05.05.2003 issued by the Tahsildar, Ranni, wherein it is certified that the applicant belongs to Hindu Mala Araya, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. Annexure A3 is a certificate dated 22.12.2005 issued by the Aikya Mala Araya Mahasabha, which is a tribal organisation at Punchavayal, wherein it is certified that the applicant belongs to Hindu Mala Araya community.
14. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the mother of the applicant belongs to Hindu Mala Araya community, and his father belongs to the Ezhava community. The marriage between the parents of the applicant was based on the registration of an agreement before the Sub Registrar Office, Ranni. Feeling aggrieved by the withholding of the result, while publishing Annexure A4 ranked list, the applicant had approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006. In the said writ petition the learned Single Judge passed Annexure A5 interim order dated 12.01.2006, whereby it was made clear that the operation of Annexure A4 ranked list (Ext.P12 in the writ petition), i.e., issuance of advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission out of that ranked list and issuance of appointment orders by the appointing authority based on such advice, will be subject to the result of that writ petition. The operative portion of that interim order reads thus;
“5. Having regard to the rival submissions made at the Bar, there will be an interim order in the following terms;
The Tahsildar, Ranni, Pathanamthitta District, is impleaded as additional respondent No.4. Issue an urgent notice to him also. He is directed to conduct necessary enquiries and submit a report before the 2nd respondent within one month of his receiving notice from this Court, on the question as to whether the petitioner has been accepted by the Mala Araya Community as a member of the Mala Araya fold and whether he is also living as a Mala Araya and is following the customs and traditions of the Mala Araya Community and whether the petitioner can rightfully claim to be a Mala Araya in fact. In the meanwhile, there will be a direction that the operation of Ext.P12 ranked list, i.e., issuance of advices by the P.S.C. from out of that ranked list and issuance of appointment orders by the appointing authority on the basis of such advices will be subject to the result of this writ petition.”
15. During the pendency of W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006, the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission issued another notification for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department. The applicant submitted an application. In that selection process, a shortlist was prepared in which the applicant was included, who was granted time by one week to produce the community certificate. The learned Single Judge issued Annexure A6 interim order dated 08.08.2011 in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006, directing the Tahsildar, Ranni, to consider the application of the applicant for the grant of a community certificate, in case he has submitted such an application, to enable him to produce the same before the Public Service Commission. By that order, the Tahsildar was directed to take appropriate action on that application, taking into account the report dated 21.03.2006 and G.O.(Ms.)No.109/2008/SCSTDD dated 20.11.2008. Later, W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006 was transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, where it was re-numbered as T.A.No.2042 of 2012.
16. During the pendency of that Transfer Application, the applicant was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector from Annexure A7 ranked list, which came into force with effect from 03.02.2012. Based on that advice, he was issued with an appointment order on 29.03.2012. After the advice and appointment of the applicant as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, the Tribunal disposed of T.A.No.2042 of 2012, by Annexure A8 order dated 04.12.2017, by directing the Public Service Commission to consider the claim of the applicant for an earlier effective date of advice from Annexure A4 ranked list, which came into force with effect from 06.12.2005. The operative portion of Annexure A8 order dated 04.12.2017 reads thus;
“In view of the above, the Transferred Application is disposed of, directing the second respondent Public Service Commission to consider the claim of the applicant for an earlier effective date of advice from Ext.P12 ranked list dated 06.12.2005. The second respondent shall consider the claim on the basis of the subsequent advice dated 29.03.2012. The second respondent shall verify whether the above advice of the applicant was against the Mala Araya turn and if so, consider the legitimate claim of the applicant for advice from the earlier list dated 06.12.2005. The second respondent will consider as to the date on which the applicant would have been advised had he been included in Ext.P12 ranked list in the Mala Araya community. In view of the interim order by the Hon’ble High Court dated 12.01.2006 the expiry of the ranked list will not stand in the way of the applicant being considered for earlier effective date of advice from Ext.P12 ranked list. The second respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In order to enable the second respondent to consider the claim of the applicant, the applicant will be permitted to file a representation putting forth his claim before the second respondent, which will be forwarded along with a certified copy of this order.”
17. Pursuant to the directions contained in Annexure A8 order of the Tribunal in T.A.No.2042 of 2012, the applicant was heard by the 2nd respondent Public Service Commission, on 20.03.2018. Thereafter, Annexure A9 order dated 27.03.2018 was issued by the Public Service Commission, whereby the applicant's claim for an earlier effective date of advice from Annexure A4 ranked list, which came into force with effect from 06.12.2005, was declined for the reasons stated therein.
18. During the course of arguments, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant are mainly based on Annexure A5 interim order of this Court dated 12.01.2006 in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006, whereby it was ordered that the operation of Annexure A4 ranked list, i.e., the issuance of advices by the Public Service Commission out of the said ranked list and issuance of appointment orders by the appointing authority based on such advices will be subject to the result of that writ petition, and also the observation made by the Tribunal in Annexure A8 order dated 04.12.2017, while disposing of T.A.No.2042 of 2012, taking note of the said interim order dated 12.01.2006.
19. Till the issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.298/61/RD dated 23.03.1961, children born on inter-caste marriages were treated as belonging to the community of their mother and, therefore, if the mother belongs to a community which is entitled to any special concessions, the children born of her, will also be eligible for those concessions irrespective of the community of their father. By G.O.(Ms.)No.298/61/RD order dated 23.03.1961, with a view to extend concession to a large number of people and for encouraging inter-caste marriage, it was ordered that in future children born of inter-caste marriage will be allowed all educational concessions given to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, provided either the father or the mother belongs to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community and the annual income of the parents does not exceed Rs.1,080/- for pre-matriculation studies and Rs.1,440/- for post-matriculation studies and technical courses.
20. By G.O.(Ms.)No.11/77/DD dated 25.01.1977, based on a clarification sought by the Public Service Commission, the Government ordered that the principle enunciated in G.O.(Ms.) No.298/61/RD dated 23.03.1961, will be adopted for determining the caste status of children born of inter-caste marriage for all purposes, according to which the children will be treated as belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community, if either of the parents belongs to that community.
21. In M.C. Valsala and another v. State of Kerala and others [2005 (4) KLT 119 : AIR 2006 Ker 1], the question that came up for consideration by a Full Bench of this Court was whether children born out of inter-caste married couple could claim the status of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe for the benefit of reservation in admission to educational institutions and in public employment on the mere fact that one of their parents belongs to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. The Full Bench noticed that, in Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary [(2003) 8 SCC 204], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the scope of clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India and the circular issued by the Bihar Government in connection with the acceptance of nominations to the reserved constituencies of the legislative assembly. In that case, it has come out in evidence that the returned candidate (Dinesh Chaudhary) was born to parents who belong to ‘Kurmi’ community, which is ‘other backward class’ (OBC), and not a scheduled caste. The Apex Court took the view that the respondent (Dinesh Chaudhary) could not establish by adducing evidence that he is a Pasi, a scheduled caste, even going by the circular issued by the Bihar Government.
22. In M.C. Valsala [AIR 2006 Ker 1], the Full Bench noticed that, in Punit Rai [(2003) 8 SCC 204], in the concurring judgment of S.B. Sinha, J., the learned Judge opined as to how the caste or tribe of the person is to be determined. Learned Judge held that the caste or tribe of the parents to be determined depended upon several factors, including customary laws. The learned Judge also held that the caste system is ingrained in the Indian's mind and in the absence of any statutory law, a person would inherit his caste from his father and not his mother, even in a case of inter-caste marriage. If he is considered to be a member of the scheduled caste, he has to be accepted by the community. The question as to whether a person belonged to a particular caste or not is to be determined by the statutory authorities specified therefor. Determination of caste of a person is governed by the customary laws, and a person under the customary Hindu law would inherit his caste from his father. If a customary law is to be given a go-by for any purpose whatsoever and particularly for the purpose of enlarging the scope of a notification issued by the President of India under clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India, the same must be done in terms of a statute and not otherwise. that a person, in the absence of any statutory law, would inherit his caste from his father and not his mother even in a case of inter-caste marriage.
23. In M.C. Valsala [AIR 2006 Ker 1], the Full Bench noticed that, by the order dated 09.02.2005 in W.P.(C)No.2483 of 2005, the matter was referred to the Full Bench, since the Division Bench felt that the impact of the G.O.(Ms.)No.11/77/DD dated 25.01.1977 be examined by a Full Bench in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Punit Rai [(2003) 8 SCC 204]. While so, the State Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.11/2005/ SCSTDD dated 22.03.2005, cancelling the earlier order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.11/77/DD dated 25.01.1977. G.O.(Ms.)No.11/2005/ SCSTDD dated 22.03.2005, reads thus;
4. Government letter No.3424/E2/84/HWD dated 12.07.1984 issued to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram
5. Judgment dated 19.08.2003 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.659 of 2003 (Punit Rai vs. Dinesh Chaudhary) reported as (2003) 8 SCC 204
ORDER
In the GO read as 2nd paper above Government ordered that the principle enunciated in the G.O. read as 1st paper above will be adopted for determining the caste of the children born of inter caste marriage for all purposes, according to which the children will be treated as belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, if wither of the parents belongs to that community. In the letter read as 4th paper above, Government directed to follow the principle of determining the caste status of children born of parents, contracted inter-caste marriage enunciated in the GOs read as 2nd and 3rd papers above and to issue Community Certificates to the persons concerned so as to enable them to be eligible for all concessions and benefits admissible to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes.
Government have examined all aspects of the issue, including the legality, propriety and constitutionality of the existing Government directions, especially in the wake of the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court read as 5th paper above and have found that the GO read as 2nd paper and the letter read as 4th paper above are tantamount to conferring Scheduled Caste/Schedule tribe status to the children born of inter-caste married couple, if either of the parents belongs to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community. Government therefore order that the GO read as 2nd paper and the letter read as 4th paper above stand cancelled with immediate effect.”
The above Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.11/2005/ SCSTDD dated 22.03.2005 was later clarified by G.O.(Ms)No.25/2005/ SCSTDD dated 20.06.2005. G.O.(Ms)No.25/2005/SCSTDD dated 20.06.2005 reads thus;
“Read:- 1. G.O.(MS)No.298/61/RD dated 23.03.1961
2. G.O.(MS)No.256/75/PD dated 01.11.1975
3. G.O.(MS)No.11/77/DD dated 25.01.1977
4. Govt.letter No.3424/E2/84/HWD dated 12.07.1984 issued to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram
5. Judgment dated 19.08.2003 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.659 of 2003 (Punit Rai Vs. Dinesh Choudhary)
6. Judgment dated 28.01.2005 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos:4413-4414 of 2003 (Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and others)
7. G.O.(MS)No.11/05/SCSTDD dated 23.03.2005.
ORDER
As per the GO, read as 7th paper above, orders were issued cancelling the GO read as 3rd paper and letter read as 4th paper above. Consequent to that, instances have come to the notice of Government that in pursuance to the GO read as 7th paper above, certain officers authorised to issue Community Certificates are not issuing Certificates to the children of inter-caste married couples, of which one is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
2. Government have examined the matter in all its aspects and in the light of the judgments read as 5th and 6th papers above, are pleased to issue the following orders/ clarifications:
(i) The Competent Authorities shall issue Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Community Certificates to the children born out of inter caste married couples only as per the caste/community of his/her father subject to the conditions of acceptance, customary traits and tenets stipulated in the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(ii) The children of inter caste married couple of which one is Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe will be eligible for educational and monetary benefits admissible to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes,
(iii) The children of inter caste married couples who secured employment against the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes by virtue of the provisions of the G.O read as 3rd paper above will be allowed to continue till the end of their service. But they will not be eligible for any benefits intended for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes with effect from 22.03.2005.
(iv) The children of inter caste married couples who secured admission to various courses/training including Professional Courses against the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, on the strength of G.O read as 3rd paper above, will be allowed to continue to receive all the educational benefits till the end of the respective course.”
The Full Bench of this Court, therefore, examined the claim of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.2483 of 2005 in the light of the above-mentioned Government orders and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Punit Rai [(2003) 8 SCC 204] and the subsequent decisions in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [(1996) 3 SCC 545], State of Kerala v. Chandramohanan [(2004) 3 SCC 429] and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy [(2005) 2 SCC 244].
24. In Valsamma Paul [(1996) 3 SCC 545], the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the appellant therein, a Syrian Catholic lady, who married a Latin Catholic (other backward class), had applied for the selection of a reserved candidate. The Apex Court examined whether a candidate who had an advantageous start in life, being born in a forward caste, and had a march of advantageous life, but is transplanted into a backward caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, is disentitled to the benefit of reservation under Article 15(4) or Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The contention raised was that due to marriage, she has subjected herself and suffered all the family disabilities of her husband. The Apex Court held that the recognition of the appellant by the members of the Latin Catholic community would not be relevant for her entitlement to the reservation under Article 16(4), for the reason that she, as a member of the forward caste, had advantageous start in life and after her completing education and becoming major married a Latin Catholic, and so, she is not entitled to the facility of reservation given to the Latin Catholic, a backward class.
25. In Chandramohanan [(2004) 3 SCC 429], the question that came up for consideration of the Apex Court was whether a person, on conversion to another religion, continues to remain a member of the tribe. After referring to the decision in Punit Rai [(2003) 8 SCC 204], the Apex Court that the question as to whether a person is a member of that tribe or has been accepted as such, despite his conversion to another religion, is essentially a question of fact and a member of the tribe despite his change in the religion may remain of that tribe, if he continues to follow the tribal traits and custom.
26. In Sobha Hymavathi Devi [(2005) 2 SCC 244], the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the appellant claimed eligibility to election from a seat reserved for scheduled tribes. The Apex Court held that the benefit would be available only to those who belong to the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and not to others who claim to acquire the status by marriage. The constitutional reservations are intended to benefit the really underprivileged and not those who come to the class by way of marriage. The principle relating to reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution laid down by the Court should be extended to the constitutional reservation of a seat for scheduled tribes in the House of the People under Article 330 or in the Legislative Assembly under Article 332 of the Constitution.
27. In M.C. Valsala [AIR 2006 Ker 1], the Full Bench found that the principles laid down in Valsamma Paul [(1996) 3 SCC 545], Punit Rai [(2003) 8 SCC 204], Chandramohanan [(2004) 3 SCC 429] and Sobha Hymavathi Devi [(2005) 2 SCC 244], etc., have to be applied in the case at hand, bearing in mind the fact that the Court is dealing with a separate class of persons, i.e., the children born to inter-caste married couple of which either the father or mother belongs to a non-scheduled caste/scheduled Tribe category. The Full Bench noticed that, for getting the benefit of Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution, the personal law of the couple as such may not be the criterion. The question is whether their offspring are subjected to the same disabilities attached to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe while being brought up either by the father or the mother, of whom one belongs to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. The basis of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution is to provide additional protection to the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as a class of persons who have been suffering for a considerable length of time due to social and educational backwardness. The protection is afforded to a homogeneous group, as held by the decision of the Apex Court in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. [(2005) 1 SCC 394]. But the claimant has to prove that he has been brought up as a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, either by the father or by the mother, and thereby did not get the advantages in life as a non-scheduled caste and is suffering all handicaps, disadvantages having been born as a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In Punit Rai [(2003) 8 SCC 204], the Apex Court held, placing reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of the person, the burden of proving the same is upon him. Authorities are not in a position to know under what circumstances an inter-caste married couple have brought up their children, a matter within the exclusive knowledge of the children and their parents. The burden is on the person who claims the benefit to establish that he/she is subjected to the same handicap and disadvantages having been born as a member of a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe.
28. In M.C. Valsala [AIR 2006 Ker 1], the Full Bench found that, if the father belongs to a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe, the child may inherit his caste from his father by operation of personal law. Even then, in order to get the benefit of Articles 15(4), 16(4) or 16(4A), read with Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, the person has to further establish that he still uses the caste of his father subject to same disabilities, disadvantages, sufferings, etc., of that caste or tribe. Unless and until the person establishes those factors, the mere fact that by virtue of the personal law he has inherited his caste status from his father or mother, as the case may be, by itself would not be sufficient to show that he is still subject to the same disadvantages. Even if father belongs to scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes, the child could be brought up in the company of the mother who belongs to forward caste, without subjecting him to any sufferings, disadvantageous, incapacity or ignominy, which would normally be suffered by the members of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and vice versa like mother belongs to scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and father belongs to non-scheduled castes/non-scheduled tribes and the child is brought up by the father and would not be subjected to the disadvantages and sufferings as if he is a member of a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe.
29. In M.C. Valsala [AIR 2006 Ker 1], the Full Bench noticed that the children born of an inter-caste marriage of which either of the parents belongs to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe should have a caste status, either that of the mother or that of the father. Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India are intended to remove all handicaps and disadvantages suffered by members of the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes. Suppose a neglected or deserted scheduled caste/scheduled tribe woman brings up her child, with the same handicaps, suffering and disadvantages attached to that caste/tribe, whose father belongs to a non-scheduled caste/non-scheduled tribe, it is too harsh to deny the benefit to that child on the mere reason that the child's father belongs to non-scheduled caste/non-scheduled tribe. The Full Bench held that, a person who claims the status of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes of his/her father or mother has to establish that on his/her birth, he/she is subjected to the same social disabilities and also follows the same customs and traditions, and the community has accepted that person into its fold. The Full Bench noticed that the Government, vide G.O.(Ms.)No.25/2005/SCSTDD dated 20.06.2005, directed the competent authorities to issue scheduled castes/scheduled tribes community certificates to the children born out of inter-caste married couples as per the caste/community of the father subject to the conditions of acceptance, customary traits and tenets stipulated in Punit Rai [(2003) 8 SCC 204] and Sobha Hymavathi Devi [(2005) 2 SCC 244]. The Full Bench held that the above Government order would also be applicable to the children born out of an inter-caste married couple if the mother belongs to a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community. Subject to the above direction, the rest of the directions contained in G.O.(Ms.)No.11/2005/SCSTDD dated 22.03.2005 and G.O.(Ms) No.25/2005/SCSTDD dated 20.06.2005 would stand. In paragraph 22 of the decision, the Full Bench noticed the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, enacted to provide for and to regulate the issue of community certificates to the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the State of Kerala.
30. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in M.C. Valsala [AIR 2006 Ker 1] was under challenge before the Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil)Nos.21472-73 of 2005 filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.910 of 2005 and 13479 of 2005. By the order dated 07.11.2005, the Apex Court issued notice in S.L.P.(Civil)Nos. 21472-73 of 2005 to the respondents, and stayed until further orders, the operation of the impugned judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. It was ordered that, in case the special leave petitions are dismissed, the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any benefit that would be accruing by virtue of the interim order. Thereafter, by the order dated 03.03.2008, the Apex Court disposed of Civil Appeal Nos.1706-07 of 2008, arising out of S.L.P.(Civil)Nos.21472-73 of 2005, the said order reads thus;
“Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
It has been stated that, pursuant to interim orders passed by the High Court as well as this court, the appellant has already completed his course and is due to appear in the final year examination to be held in the month of April, 2008. In view of this, we direct that the appellant shall be permitted to appear in the examination, but, in the matter of employment, he shall not be permitted to claim the benefit that he belongs to Mala Arayan Scheduled Tribe. The impugned order is, accordingly, modified.
The civil appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.”
31. After the disposal of Civil Appeal Nos.1706-07 of 2008, the 1st respondent State issued G.O.(Ms.)No.109/2008/SCSTDD dated 20.11.2008, modifying the criteria to be followed while issuing scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community certificate to the children born out of an inter-caste married couple, of which one of the parents is a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. G.O.(Ms.)No.109/2008/SCSTDD dated 20.11.2008 reads thus;
4. Government letter No.3424/E2/84/HWD dated 12.07.1984 issued to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram.
5. Judgment dated 19.08.2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.659 of 2003 (Punit Rai Vs Dinesh Chaudhary).
6. Judgment dated 28.01.2005 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.4413, 4414 of 2003 (Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs Setty Gangadhara Swamy and others).
7. G.O.(Ms.)No.11/2005/SCSTDD dated
22.03.2005.
8. G.O.(Ms.)No.25/05/SCSTDD dated 20.06.2005.
9. Judgment dated 10.08.2005 of the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C)Nos.2483, 7039, 17317 of 2005 and connected cases
(Indira Vs State of Kerala).
10. Judgment dated 07.11.2005 and 03.03.2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C)No. 21472-73/2005 filed by Dr. Anoop.
11. Letter No.F/12026/6/06-C&LM.I dated 03.10.2008 from Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India.
ORDER
As per G.O. read as 8th paper above, Government have issued Orders stating that the Competent Authorities shall issue Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community Certificates to the children born out of inter caste married couple only as per the caste/community of his/her father subject to the conditions of acceptance, customary traits and tenets, stipulated in the Judgments of Supreme Court of India read as 5 and 6 above.
As per Judgment read as 9 above, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Indira v. State of Kerala, the children born out of inter caste married couple of which one of the parents is Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe can claim the status of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe on proof of the conditions of the acceptance, customary traits and tenets under which such children are brought up.
In view of the above observations of the High Court of Kerala Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to order that the Competent Authority who has to issue Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate to the children born out of inter caste married couple of which one of the parents is Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe should ensure that the claimant is subjected to same social disabilities and also following the same customs and traditions and community has accepted that person to its fold as such. The Authority to issue the Caste Certificate should also ensure that:
(1) each case shall be examined individually in the light of the existing facts and circumstances;
(u) the claimant has suffered disabilities---socially, economically and educationally;
(iii) the society has accepted the claimant to their original fold as one among them and is living in the same social tenet.
The G.O. read as 8th paper above stands modified to this extent.”
32. As already noticed hereinbefore, during the course of arguments, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant are mainly based on Annexure A5 interim order of this Court dated 12.01.2006 in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006, whereby it was ordered that the operation of Annexure A4 ranked list, i.e., the issuance of advices by the Public Service Commission out of the said ranked list and issuance of appointment orders by the appointing authority based on such advices will be subject to the result of that writ petition, and also the observation made by the Tribunal in Annexure A8 order dated 04.12.2017, while disposing of T.A.No.2042 of 2012, taking note of the said interim order dated 12.01.2006.
33. The specific stand taken in Ext.P2 reply statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Public Service Commission was that the applicant was advised from Annexure A7 ranked list, which was brought into force with effect from 03.02.2012, on the strength of a community certificate issued to him, after Annexure A6 interim order dated 08.08.2011 in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006. The said community certificate was one issued by the Tahsildar, Ranni, in accordance with the procedure contemplated in G.O.(Ms.)No. 109/2008/SCSTDD dated 20.11.2008. Though the date on which the applicant was issued with a community certificate, in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the said Government order dated 20.11.2008, is not discernible from the pleadings and materials on record, it is an admitted fact that the said community certificate was one issued to the applicant after Annexure A6 interim order dated 08.08.2011 in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006.
34. It is not in dispute that the non-inclusion of the name of the applicant in Annexure A4 ranked list, which came into force with effect from 06.12.2005, for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department, was for the reasons that his claim for caste status as Hindu-Mala Araya was not accepted by the 2nd respondent Public Service Commission. As already noticed hereinbefore, the mother of the applicant belongs to Hindu Mala Araya community, and his father belongs to Ezhava community. As already noticed hereinbefore, till the issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.109/2008/SCSTDD dated 20.11.2008, the caste status of children of the parents who contracted inter-caste marriage was decided based on the criteria prescribed in the Government orders then in force.
35. The learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission would point out the statutory requirements of Rule 17C of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR), inserted by G.O.(P)No.44/1993/P&ARD. dated 30.09.1993 published as SRO No.625/1994 in Kerala Gazette No.16 dated 19.04.1994, which provided that the candidate claiming benefit of age relaxation/reservation in appointments/ special recruitment by virtue of being a member of the backward classes/scheduled castes/scheduled tribes as provided for in sub- rules (c), (d) and (dd) of Rule 10, Rule 14, Rule 17A and Rule 17B shall produce to the satisfaction of the Kerala Public Service Commission, certificates/relevant documents as required by them, to prove the claim in the application and in any case, before the finalisation of the ranked list for the post concerned.
36. Rule 17C of Part II KS&SSR was substituted by S.R.O.No.1036/2024, published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.3636 dated 13.11.2024, with effect from 13.11.2024. As per Rule 17C of Part II KS&SSR, as substituted by S.R.O.No. 1036/2024, with effect from 13.11.2024, the candidate claiming the benefit of age relaxation/reservation in appointments/special recruitments by virtue of being a member of the Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Economically Weaker Sections as provided for in sub-rules (c), (d) and (dd) of Rule 10, Rule 14, Rule 17A and Rule 17B ibid shall produce to the satisfaction of the Kerala Public Service Commission, certificates/relevant documents as required by them, to prove the claim in the application and in any case, on or before date fixed by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the production of the documents.
37. A reading of the provisions under Rule 17C of Part II KS&SSR, which was in force during the relevant time, i.e., prior to its substitution by S.R.O.No.1036/2024 dated 13.11.2024, would make it explicitly clear that a candidate claiming the benefit of reservation in appointment by virtue of being a member of a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community shall produce to the satisfaction of the Public Service Commission, certificates/relevant documents as required by the Commission, to prove the claim in the application, in any case, before finalisation of the ranked list for the post concerned.
38. In view of the mandatory requirements of Rule 17C of Part II KS&SSR, as it stood prior to its substitution by S.R.O.No.1036/2024 dated 13.11.2024, for inclusion in Annexure A4 ranked list published by the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department, which came into force with effect from 06.12.2005, as a candidate claiming the benefit of reservation as a member of a scheduled tribe community, the petitioner-applicant should have produced a community certificate to the satisfaction of the Public Service Commission, as required by the Commission, before finalisation of that ranked list for the post concerned. At any rate, on the strength of the community certificate issued to the applicant in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the Government order dated 20.11.2008, which was one issued to the applicant after Annexure A6 interim order dated 08.08.2011 in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006, admittedly after the finalisation of Annexure A4 ranked list published by the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, which came into force with effect from 06.12.2005, the applicant has no legal right to claim an earlier appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department, by inclusion of his name in Annexure A4 ranked list, as a schedule tribe candidate.
39. In view of the mandatory requirements of Rule 17C of Part II KS&SSR, as it stood prior to its substitution by S.R.O.No.1036/2024 dated 13.11.2024, Annexure A5 interim order of this Court dated 12.01.2006 in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006 that the operation of Annexure A4 ranked list, i.e., the issuance of advices by the Public Service Commission out of the said ranked list and issuance of appointment orders by the appointing authority based on such advices will be subject to the result of that writ petition, and also the observation made by the Tribunal in Annexure A8 order dated 04.12.2017, while disposing of T.A.No.2042 of 2012, taking note of the said interim order dated 12.01.2006, would not enable the petitioner-applicant to claim an earlier appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department, by inclusion of his name in Annexure A4 ranked list, as a schedule tribe candidate, on the strength of the community certificate issued to the applicant in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the Government order dated 20.11.2008, after Annexure A6 interim order dated 08.08.2011 in W.P.(C)No.956 of 2006, which was one issued to the applicant, admittedly after the finalisation of Annexure A4 ranked list published by the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, which came into force with effect from 06.12.2005.
40. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in rejecting the challenge made in O.A.No.986 of 2018, against Annexure A9 order dated 27.03.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, for the reasons stated in Ext.P3 order dated 13.02.2026, and also in rejecting the consequential reliefs sought for in that original application. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order for rejecting the challenge made against Annexure A9 order and also for rejecting the consequential reliefs sought for in that original application is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting any interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, this original petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
