Public Service Commission Can't Demand Gazette Notification To Resolve Caste Name Discrepancy, Certificate From Revenue Sufficient: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has held that the Public Service Commission cannot require an applicant to provide a gazette notification to address discrepancies in caste name, to prove that the applicant belongs to a community different from the one listed on their Secondary School Leaving Certificate.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K.Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar on referring to Clause (g) (ii) (a) of Part II, General Conditions stated that a certificate from the Revenue Authority is sufficient.
“What is thereby insisted on is production of a certificate from the revenue authority. It is specified that no Gazette notification is required to support the claim that the applicant belongs to a community other than which is mentioned in the SSLC.”
The first respondent was placed at 14th rank for selection to the post of Attender Grade II in the Homoeopathy Department in Kottayam District. The ranked list was approved on April 28, 2020.
The first respondent claimed OBC reservation and produced a caste certificate showing that he belonged to Pattariyas. However, in his SSLC book, the caste name Padmasaliya was shown.
The PSC directed him to produce a gazette notification correcting his caste name. To clarify this, the first respondent submitted a certificate issued by the village officer showing that he belonged to the Hindu-Padmasaliya (Pattarya) community.
The PSC denied OBC reservation to the first respondent. He approached the Tribunal to set aside the ranked list to the extent to which it denied him OBC reservation and sought relief including advise for appointment. The Tribunal allowed his original application. The PSC prefers appeal to the High Court.
The Court was thus posed the following question, “If the first respondent has a claim that his caste name was mistakenly stated in his SSLC, what is the procedure enabling him to get the mistake corrected?”
The Court noted as per Clause (g) (ii) (a) of Part II General Conditions there is no requirement that Gazette notification has to be produced to show that the applicant belongs to a community other than what is mentioned in the SSLC.
The Court said, “Be that as it may, in the light of Annexure A3 (certificate issued by village officer), which is a certification by the appropriate revenue authority having the effect of correction of the mistake in noting the caste of the 1st respondent in his SSLC, the petitioners should not have denied the 1st respondent the benefit of reservation.”
As such, the Court dismissed the petition and held that the order of the Tribunal did not warrant interference.
Counsel for Petitioners: Standing Counsel P C Sasidharan
Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Varun C Vijay, Divya Chandran, Senior Government Pleader Vineetha B
Case Number: O.P.(KAT) NO. 406 OF 2023
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v Dinesh K M
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 565