AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for 1st and 2nd respondents. The matter is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Grade II in Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited as per the notification issued by the 2nd respondent/Public Service Commission. He claimed benefits of age relaxation as a child of Hindu-Kurava(Scheduled Caste), who converted to Christianity, resulting in a group belonging to Other Christians( for short OX). Apparently, appellant''s name finds a place in the rank list at Ext.P3.
The Commission, subsequent to the publication of the rank list, sent a requisition to the appellant directing him to produce a caste certificate as per Ext.P4 so as to get the benefit of age relaxation. In response, Ext.P5 was sent to the Commission claiming age relaxation. However, this was not accepted and again Ext.P6 communication was issued to him. Then, Ext.P7 was sent by the appellant substantiating his claim for age relaxation and thereafter, Ext.P8 show cause notice was issued by the respondent Commission asking explanation why the name of the appellant should not be removed from the rank list. At that stage, the appellant approached this Court challenging Ext.P8.
The respondent Commission relies upon Rule 10(c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS & SSR) indicating requirement or duty cast on the applicant to satisfy that he is entitled for age relaxation benefit as he belongs to ''OX group''. It is the stand of the Commission that Ext.P5 does not indicate, father of the appellant had converted Christianity after he became an adult, therefore, it cannot be accepted. They also contend that no details; when actually such conversion took place were forthcoming to accept Ext.P5. After referring to Rule 10(c) of the above rules the learned Judge opined, Ext.P5 is not indicating the details required by the Commission as per the Rule 10(c), therefore there is justification on the part of the Commission to issue Ext.P8, therefore declined to quash Ext.P8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, there is no format as such declared by any of the authorities concerned indicating how such caste certificate should be obtained, therefore, it would be difficult for the candidates and even the issuing authority, i.e. the Village Officer, who is not adopting any particular format while issuing the caste certificate. Therefore, according to him, he not being the authority which has issued Ext.P5, it would be difficult for the appellant to indicate any of the format for issuance of such certificate.
Having regard to the stand of the Commission, they reiterate what was stated before the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on Rule 10(c). After going through the provision and also the details of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the actual grievance we could make out from the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is, there is no indication of any particular format in which the caste certificate had to be brought by the appellant, therefore, the difficulty of present nature is arising. Having regard to the stand of the Commission in the counter affidavit filed by them, that there are no details; whether father of the appellant was an adult at the time of conversion and when such conversion was took place and where. Therefore, it would be difficult for the Commission to act upon Ext.P5. In the light of indicating the details required by the Commission, the appellant ought to have secured a proper caste certificate in order to claim such relaxation as his name provisionally finds place in the rank list. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, in the interest of justice it would be just and proper to dispose of the writ appeal directing the 2nd respondent Commission to keep the name of the appellant provisionally in the rank list for a period of three months to produce a certificate indicating all the details required by the 2nd respondent Commission so as to extend the benefit of age relaxation.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.