RAHAMANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The caste status of the petitioner and the claim to have a Community Certificate, showing the community of the petitioner as 'Vettuvan' belonging to Scheduled Caste, is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. The sequence of events shows that the petitioner was a child in the inter-caste marriage between the father belonging to 'Thiyya' community and the mother belonging to 'Vettuvan' Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. Immediately after the birth of the petitioner, the father took his last breath and the petitioner was brought up by her mother and members of the family as a member of 'Vettuvan' community, undergoing all the sufferings and drawback attached to the said community in the Society. Reference is made to Exts. P1 to P3 documents, such as front page of the SSLC Book, Community Certificate and similar certificate issued by the concerned authority wherein it is shown that the petitioner was being accepted as a member belonging to Scheduled Caste. Ext. P4 certificate issued by the Vettuvan Mahasabha, Kozhikode District Committee is also produced to show that the petitioner actually belongs to the said community.

(2.) When the petitioner approached the concerned authority for issuance of a fresh Community Certificate in the year 2008, the same was declined to be issued, doubting the caste status, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, mainly seeking for the benefit of Ext. P6 Government Order dated 20.11.2008 and for a direction to the respondents to issue the Community Certificate showing that she belongs to 'Vettuvan' community. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 19.2.2010, the following interim order came to be passed:

(3.) Pursuant to the said order, Ext. P10 Provisional Certificate dated 5.4.2010 was issued, which has been produced along with I.A. No. 7623 of 2011. The case of the petitioner as projected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, eligibility of the petitioner to have the benefit of Ext. P6 Government Order has however been considered by the second respondent/Tahsildar, Koyilandy and an observation has been made in Ext. P9 order dated 18.3.2010 holding that, even though the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of Ext. P6 Government Order, the same is not liable to be extended to the petitioner by virtue of subsequent events, i.e., marriage of the petitioner with a person belonging to Thiyya community. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been insinuated for having acquired Post Graduate qualification and also for having married a 'police constable' as mentioned in Ext. P9 order, to deny the benefit of Ext. P6.