M.C.VALSALA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether children born out of inter-caste married couple could claim the status of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the benefit of reservation in admission to educational institutions and in public employment on the mere fact that one of their parents belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is the question that is posed for our consideration.

(2.) We find that what has caused anxiety and even panic is the reluctance to accept the reality and the possible ramifications which such an adjudication might bring in the community texture. Identification of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes in a State or Union Territory is a presidential prerogative as gatherable from Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. Nobody other than a person who is member of a caste/tribe can claim to be a scheduled caste or tribe. Therefore claim of a person born of intercaste marriage that he is a member of one or the other caste requires an adjudication. If he is found as a member of the caste or tribe, he is entitled to be recognised as such. If not, he is disentitled from making a claim. Therefore the issue is whether there is a mechanism for adjudging such claim and rights and how far the working of such machinery is satisfactory.

(3.) Petitioners in W.P.C. No. 2483 of 2005 sought a direction to the Tahsildar to issue a community certificate stating that the second petitioner belongs to scheduled caste Kanakka community placing reliance on G.O.Ms. 11/77 dated 25.1.1977. When the matter came up for hearing it was referred to a Division Bench. The Bench felt that the impact of the Government order G.O.Ms 11/77 dated 25.1.1977 be examined by a larger Bench in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhury ((2003) 8 SCC 204) and referred the matter to a larger Bench vide order dated 9.2.2005. While so, the Government issued G.O.(Ms) No. 11/05/SCSTDD dated 22.3.2005 cancelling earlier order dated 25.1.1977. G.O(Ms) No. 11/2005 was later clarified by the Government, vide G.O.(Ms) No. 25/2005/SCSTDD dated 20.6.2005. We have therefore to examine the claims of the petitioners in the light of the above mentioned Government orders and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Punit Rai's case, supra and in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Ors. and on the basis of the other decided cases.