Ruby John vs State Of Kerala

T.R.Ravi, J

The issues raised in these three writ petitions relate to the community status of the petitioners, all of whom belong to one family, consisting of the

mother, father and two children. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2016

This writ petition is filed by Mrs.Ruby John praying to quash Exts.P7 and P8 and for a direction to the respondents to issue caste/tribe certificate

treating the petitioner as member of 'Malai Arayan Christian Community' converted from 'Malai Arayan Hindu Community'.

W.P.(C)No.25171 of 2020

This writ petition is filed by the husband and children of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2016 praying to quash Ext.P9 and for a direction to

the respondents to issue caste/tribe certificate treating the petitioners as members of 'Malai Arayan Christian Community' converted from 'Malai

Arayan Hindu Community' and for other reliefs.

W.P.(C)No.1936 of 2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25171 of 2020 praying to quash Ext.P5 issued by the eighth respondent Commission,

relying on the findings of the KIRTADS in the enquiry conducted in the case of Mrs.Ruby John.

Heard Sri.George Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the 3 cases and Sri.K.V.Prakash, learned Special Government

Pleader, Smt. Deepa Narayanan, learned Senior Government Pleader and Smt.Rashmi K.M., learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

The case of the petitioners in all these cases is that they belonged to the Malai Arayan Christian community which is a Scheduled Tribe. According

to them, their forefathers had adopted the custom and practice of Malai Arayan Christian Community and they were also subjected to the same

liabilities, hardships and sufferings of the said Community. Even though the writ petitions proceed on the basis that the Malai Arayan Christian

community is notified, it can be seen from Part VII of The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended from time to time, relating to the

Kerala State that the relevant entry is Sl.No. 20 which reads as Malai Arayan (Mala Arayan). There is also a similar sounding entry against Sl.No.26

as “Malayarayarâ€​ with which these writ petitions are not concerned with.

An enquiry has already been conducted into the community status of Mrs.Ruby John, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30743 of 2016. The 4th

respondent in the said writ petition has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the Vigilance Cell of KIRTADS (6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.30743

of 2016) had conducted an anthropological enquiry as per the provisions of the Act 11 of 1996 and in the report dated 30.11.2017 found that the father

of Mrs.Ruby John belongs to Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community. It is further stated that her mother is an offspring of inter-caste married

couple of which the father belonged to the Christian Community of CSI denomination and mother belonged to Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan

Community. It is further stated that the SSLC book relating to Mrs.Ruby John showed her as Christian Malai Arayan. It is also stated that the enquiry

disclosed the fact that Mrs.Ruby John is socialized in the cultural background of Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community of her father and the

society included her as the member of Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community. The KIRTADS has come to a conclusion that Mrs.Ruby John can

be considered as a treated member of the Scheduled Tribe, Malai Arayan Community since the father belongs to the said Community and mother is

an offspring of CSI Christian father and Scheduled Tribe mother. It is further stated that as per the proceedings No.2035057/G3/2017/SCSTDD dated

7.2.2018, the Scrutiny Committee has endorsed the findings of the expert agency that the petitioner can be considered as a treated Member of the

Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community. However, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee has observed that since Mrs.Ruby John has married a

person belonging to Christian Marthoma denomination, the Community status of her children will not come under the purview of G.O.

(MS)109/08/SCSTDD dated 20.11.2008 and that her children would not hence be eligible to be treated as members of Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan

Community. In the light of the findings of the expert agency and the proceedings of the Scrutiny committee, there can now be no dispute regarding the

community status of Mrs.Ruby John. In the above circumstances, Exts.P7 and P8 in W.P.(C) No.30743 of 2016 are no longer relevant. It is declared

that Mrs.Ruby John is entitled to a caste/tribe certificate treating her as a member of the Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community.

In W.P.(C). No.25171 of 2020, the grievance is regarding community status of the husband and children of Mrs.Ruby John. The petitioners have

stated in the writ petition that even though all the petitioners were treated as Malai Arayan Community of Christian religion, on the basis of the entry in

the first petitioner's SSLC book that he belongs to Christian Marthoma, the benefits of being a Scheduled Tribe was not being extended. It is the case

of the first petitioner that the finding recorded that he belongs to Christian Marthoma denomination is wrong. According to him, he hails from CSI

Christian Malai Arayan Community and is a resident of Melukavu Village in Meenachil Taluk of Kottayam District and his mother belongs to

Marthoma Christian community which was the reason why the SSLC certificate shows his community as Christian Marthoma. He submits that the

fourth respondent had after enquiry issued Ext.P2 certificate which shows that he belongs to Malai Arayan Christian community converted from

Malai Arayan Hindu Community. He relies on Exts.P3, P3(a), P4 and P5 certificates which also show that he belonged to Malai Arayan Community.

The petitioners have also produced the order of the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe wherein there is a direction to

issue caste certificate to petitioners 2 and 3 showing their community as Malai Arayan Christian community. The case of the petitioners is that no

enquiry has been conducted regarding the community status of the petitioners, as was done in the case of their mother by the KIRTADS. This fact is

not disputed by the respondents. Since there has been no enquiry into the issue, the only relief that can be granted in this case is a direction to

respondents 6 and 7 to conduct an enquiry into the community status of the petitioners in W.P.(C). No.25171/2020, with particular reference to the

findings in the enquiry into the community status of Mrs.Ruby John. However, the enquiry should not in any way be influenced by the observation in

the enquiry report relating to Mrs.Ruby John, that her children will not be entitled to be included as Scheduled Tribe.

W.P.(C)No.1936 of 2021 is challenging Ext.P5 order issued by the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly,

the Commission does not have the power to decide on the caste status. The Commission initially passed Ext.P4 order wherein it was found that the

petitioners belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community. However, by Ext.P5 order, the findings in the earlier order were revisited and on the basis of the

order issued with regard to the Community status of Mrs.Ruby John, wherein there is a finding that the children cannot claim benefit of the Schedule

Tribe community, the Commission deleted the finding that the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Tribe community and left open the issue for decision

by the court and by the Tahasildar, Meenachil. Since Ext.P4 order itself is not within the powers of the Commission, both Exts.P4 and P5 orders are

only to be ignored to the extent they declare the caste status of the petitioners. Even though there is a finding in the proceedings

No.2035057/G3/2017/SCSTDD dated 7.2.2018 of the Scrutiny committee that the declaration of the community status of Mrs.Ruby John will not help

the petitioners herein and that the children will not come within the purview of G.O.(MS)109/08/SCSTDD dated 20.11.2008, the said observation has

been made without a detailed enquiry into the community status of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25171 of 2020 and cannot bind them.

In the result, W.P.(C) No.25171 of 2020 is disposed of directing the 6th and 7th respondents to conduct an enquiry into the community status of

the petitioners therein with reference to the earlier enquiry regarding the community status of Mrs.Ruby John and to arrive at an independent finding

regarding their community status. Such enquiry shall not be influenced by the observation in the enquiry report in Mrs.Ruby John's case that her

children cannot claim the benefits. On the basis of the decision of respondents 6 and 7, the concerned Revenue Officers will issue necessary

certificates to the petitioners therein. The enquiry shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

W.P.(C)No.1936 of 2021 is disposed of holding that the eighth respondent does not have the power to decide on the caste status and that Ext.P5

as well as Ext.P4 have been issued without any authority and law and are liable to be ignored while taking a decision regarding the caste status of the

petitioners therein.

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.