GANGADHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the Original Petition is with regard to ext. P7 order passed by the Government of Kerala declaring that the petitioners herein, who are father and son, do not belong to the 'mannan' Community, but belong to 'agasa' Community which is only a Backward Community; that they are not entitled to the benefits available for Scheduled Tribes; and directing (i)recovery of all benefits granted to the petitioners as though they were members of the Schedule Tribe; (ii) that entries in the records and S. S. L. C. Book relating to the 2nd petitioner which show that the 2nd petitioner belong to 'mannan' Community shall be corrected to the effect that he belongs to 'agasa' community; that T. Vijayalakshmi, daughter of the 1st petitioner (she is not a party to the present case) who has secured employment as though she belongs to 'mannan' Community be retrenched from service; that the former Tahsildar, Kannur, by name Sri. C. Govindan Nambiar be proceeded against through disciplinary proceedings for giving false certificate to the 2nd petitioner that he belongs to'mannan' Community and as such is a member of a Schedule tribe and directing the Schedule Caste Development Officer, Kannur, and the integrated Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Kannur, to give all assistance to the Tahsildar, Kannur for implementation of the said directions.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the 1st petitioner was employed as Post Master until his retirement on 31. 1. 1990; that in the Admission Register concerned his caste had been recorded as 'dhoby' ('mannan'); that the caste of the 2nd petitioner is also recorded as 'mannan' in the S. S. L. C. Book; and that in the circumstances, the findings entered in Ext. RI (a) order of the Kerala Institute for Research Training and development Studies of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (KIRTADS) are absolutely unjustified and for the same reason Ext. P7 which is the consequential order also has to fail.

(3.) I find no merit in the aforesaid submission. A perusal of Ext. RI (a) order shows that the proceedings commenced based on a Government letter dated 15. 10. 1990. it is conceded during hearing that as on the said date, the 1st petitioner was not in the service of the Central Government having retired on 31. 1. 1990 and that the 2nd petitioner also was not in the New india Assurance Company. He was then only an employee of the North Malabar grameen Bank and as such neither of the petitioners were within employment under the direct jurisdiction of the Central Government.