KALAVATHI S NERGI Vs. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER UDUPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is: whether the Petitioner who, by birth, belongs to 'balija' caste, is entitled to claim that she belongs to 'adi Dravida' (SC) by virtue of her marriage with a person belonging to 'adi Dravida' community? answer to the above question is in the negative for the following reasons:

(2.) BOTH the learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Kasturi and Sri. Ramdas, appearing for the petitioner, respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company, respectively relied upon the following decisions; valsamma Paul (Mrs.) v. Cochin University and others (1996) 3 SCC 545): (AIR 1996 SC 1011)State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others (2001) 1 SCC 4 : (AIR 2001 SC 393); and r. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others (2004) 2 SCC 105) : (AIR 2004 sc 1469)

(3.) SRI. K. Kasturi submitted that on 5-6-1977, the petitioner married to one Shankar nergi, who belongs to Adi Dravida community (Scheduled Caste) and therefore she belongs to Adi Dravida community and on that basis, the Tahsildar of Udupi also issued a caste certificate. On 27-8-1979 the respondent no. 3/ Insurance Company appointed the petitioner as Assistant, as against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste. The petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on 23-8-2015 and this juncture cancelling the caste certificate by District Caste Verification committee (in short "the DCVC") granted in 1977, on the basis of report dated 22-1-2001 submitted by the CRE Cell, is bad in law. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 /appellate authority also erred in confirming the order of DCVC. He relied upon the decision rendered in N. E. Horo v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal singh (AIR 1972 SC 1840), and other decisions.