ARIFA LULU T K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the Writ Petition was filed as a public interest litigation, by order dated 28-5-2013 the Division Bench observed that if the petitioners are aggrieved by denial of the benefit to their children, the matter should be taken up before the Single Judge having roster to consider the same. Accordingly, the above Writ Petition is heard and decided by this Court. The petitioners inter alia seek for a direction to implement the creamy layer principle in granting reservation to socially and educationally backward classes (for short 'SEBC') in the matter of admission of students to Medical, Engineering and other courses in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, 2008 6 SCC 1.

(2.) In W.P. (C) No. 29271 of 2012 the first petitioner is a class II employee of KERAFED and his wife is a primary teacher in the Government school. The second petitioner is a police constable and his wife is a school teacher. The third petitioner and his wife are primary teachers in Government school. Their children intend to apply for M.B.B.S., Engineering or other professional courses in the State of Kerala after their twelfth. According to them, since the annual salary of the parents together exceeds Rs. 4.5 lakhs each, as per the present norms, they are excluded from reservation as they come under creamy layer. W.P. (C) No. 11578/2013 is filed by 10 persons who are applicants for admission to MBBS, BDS and Engineering Degree course.

(3.) It is contended that the Government is bound to implement the judgment in Ashoka Kumar Thakur's case as far as the reservation to professional (educational) courses are concerned. As matters stand now, the approach of the Government is that all those belonging to socially and economically backward classes having an annual income of Rs. 4.5 lakhs and above have to be excluded from reservation as evident from the prospectus of Medical and Engineering colleges. Unless the creamy layer principle is incorporated, the students will not get the admission as contemplated. In Ashoka Kumar Thakur's case it is held that wherever there is reservation in favour of backward classes, the creamy layer of such classes has to be excluded and that non-inclusion of creamy layer principle would make the entire reservation unconstitutional.