Hrishikesh Roy, C.J. - The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 17.1.2019, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the W.P.(C).No.28199/2018, by holding that the 1st petitioner Sri.Amal Krishnan C.V., the son of the 2nd petitioner Sri.Vivekanandan C.A., belongs to the Padanna Caste, and therefore should be recognised as a Scheduled Caste category person, and deserving of the benefits emanating therefrom.

2. The specific case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioners father, Sri.Vivekanandan C.A. belongs to the Hindu Padanna Community, but only because he had contracted inter-caste marriage with a Hindu-Thiyya lady, he is being unfairly excluded from the Scheduled Caste category. Challenging the negative findings of the Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies of Scheduled Castes and Tribes [KIRTADS] and also the Ext.P19 (Dt.25.6.2018) the proceedings before the Convenor, Screening Committee for conducting Entrance Examination based on the enquiry report of the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS, the petitioners contended that since the father (2nd petitioner) was recognised as a Hindu Padanna, and was granted all benefits as a Scheduled Caste category person, the same benefit must necessarily accrue to the son Amal Krishnan C.V. (1st petitioner).

3. In support of their contention, the petitioners relied on the Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Kerala Padanna Mahasabha, Ponnani Taluk Central Committee that the marriage of the 2nd petitioner with the 1st petitioners mother was celebrated at the Brides residence at Eramangalam, adhering to the rituals and rites of the Padanna Community. It was also projected that the father of the 2nd petitioner (grand father of the 1st petitioner) is the head priest of the Padanna Community Temple in his area, and he is also the oracle, who is also authorised to perform the religious rites, pertaining to the Padanna Community. The petitioners also contended that although the 2nd petitioner married outside the Community, he was issued a Community Certificate showing him to be from the Padanna community. According to the petitioners, they were subjected to the same social disadvantages suffered by people belonging to the Padanna Community.

4. The contrary finding to the effect that the 1st petitioner, should instead be recognised as an OBC Category was based upon the fact that, his mother belonged to the Hindu-Thiyya Community, recognised as OBC. It was also reflected in the Ext.P11 proceedings of the KIRTADS that the 1st petitioner was brought up in the milieu and circumstances of the Thiyya Community in Kannur. Therefore, he did not suffer any social disadvantage as a member of the Scheduled Caste Community, of his father.

5. On assessment of the relevant records, inter-alia, the Ext.P11 report and the Ext.P17 report of the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS, the learned Judge however noticed that no material whatsoever has been brought on record, in support of the conclusion drawn in Ext.P19 or in the reports relied upon, for the conclusion in the Ext.P19. The Court found that the 1st petitioner was born at Ponnani Taluk, and was brought up at Veliyamcode and Eramangalam in the Ponnani Taluk, and he had no connection whatsoever with Kannur. Therefore, the contention to the contrary that the 1st petitioner was brought up in the milieu of the Thiyyas (the OBC Community at Kannur), was found to be without any material basis whatsoever. It was specifically noticed in the impugned judgment that the petitioners ancestors had suffered the disadvantage and disability attached to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Padanna Community. Moreover the members of the Padanna Community unhesitatingly accepted the petitioners as one of their own. According to the learned Judge the social disabilities which the petitioners suffered are the same as those, currently suffered by the members of the Padanna Community, but obviously, it would not be relatable to the indignity and the untouchability prevalent in an earlier era. In other words, the disadvantages attached to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste Community was held to be suffered by the petitioners, and the finding to the contrary were found to be without any material basis.

6. Most conspicuously, for the negative finding against the petitioners, the so called investigation referred to in Ext.P17 indicated that at the time when the 1st petitioner was born, his pregnant mother shifted to her parental residence, and the son was born in the maternal grandparents house and the infant was taken care of by the mothers family for three months, under the traditions of the Hindu-Thiyya Community. This was projected to be the anthropological basis, for saying that the 1st petitioner was brought up in the milieu of the Thiyya Community-the Community of the mother, which is recognised in the OBC Category. But such finding not only ignores the usual Indian practice of an expecting lady proceeding to her parents residence for delivery of the child. It also ignores the document Nos.9-16 submitted by the 2nd petitioner to the effect that the petitioners family was residing in the social circumstances, applicable for the Padanna Community. Moreover, the rituals which were conducted at the Family Temple of the Padanna Community at the fathers native place Kadavanad, Ponnani, and the recognition of the father, the grand father by the members of the Padanna Community people would clearly suggest that the petitioners should be recognised as a Padanna Community persons. But these relevant facts were disregarded.

7. However, mainly because there was an inter-caste marriage between the 2nd petitioner and his wife [mother of the 1st petitioner], it was unjustly concluded that the son had not suffered the backwardness, associated with the Padanna Community. On this aspect, the Court must bear in mind that the object of reservation is to remove the hardship, the disadvantages and the restrictions suffered by a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person and to afford them an opportunity to bring them into the mainstream of the Nation by providing them facilities of education, employment etc. Normally, the lineage for a family member belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe will be through the father and if he marries a woman of another caste/community, the woman usually embraces the caste/community of her husband but not vice versa. However, in the present case, the authorities had proceeded in a reverse direction to say that the 1st petitioner has lost the Scheduled Caste status of the father merely because, his father had married a lady belonging to the OBC Category.

8. The learned Judge noticed the absence of any material, to substantiate inference that the 1st petitioner was not brought up on the social milieu of his fathers community, and did not suffer any disadvantage suffered by the members of the Scheduled Caste Padanna Community. Moreover, the learned Government Pleader Sri.Prakash is unable to bring before this Court any material, for taking a negative view on the Scheduled Caste categorisation of the writ petitioners. Under these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Judge in allowing the W.P. (C).No.28199/2018 and directing acceptance of the Community Certificate (Ext.P10). The States Appeal is therefore found devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed.