ATHIRA SURESH Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER /candidate herein has claimed Scheduled Caste status as he belongs to Hindu Cheramar Community. Apparently, an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Officer of KIRTADS/expert agency. Ext.P5 therein is the report of the Vigilance Officer/KIRTADS. The report is not in favour of the candidate/petitioner, who is seeking Scheduled Caste Status. As per the report, the candidate's paternal grandfather belonged to Hindu Cheramar Community, but married a Hindu Ezhava lady. Similarly, the candidate's (petitioner) father, who was an offspring of an inter caste married couple, married a person belonging to Hindu Nadar Community.

(2.) AS per Ext.P5 report, the candidate/petitioner did not suffer any of the social disabilities or social discrimination of the Scheduled Caste community. Ext.P5 report, according to the Vigilance officer of KIRTADS, does not indicate that the candidate was born and brought up according to the custom and traditions of Scheduled Caste, i.e Hindu Cheramar Community. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was negatived. Learned Judge, ultimately opined that Ext.P5 is only an opinion expressed by the Expert agency/KIRTADS and the petitioner still has an opportunity to challenge the same before the Scrutiny Committee or other statutory authorities envisaged under the Act concerned. In the net result, the learned Single Judge did not finally opine whether Ext.P5 is perverse or otherwise. However, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Scrutiny Committee, made an observation that Ext.P5 report of the officer cannot be termed as perverse at that point of time, which according to the petitioner/appellant may come, in the way of positive decision, in their favour before the Scrutiny Committee.