M. Ajitha rep. by Natural Guardian and next friend father, V. Manokaran vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

P. Shanmugham, J.—Petitioner is a minor represented by her father. She seeks for a direction to the second Respondent to consider the intercaste marriage certificate issued by the Tahsildar, dated 29-7-1999 for admission to the Secondary Grade Teacher Training Course for the academic year 1999-2000.

Admittedly the last date for receipt of applications for admission to the course was 16-7-1999. Though the Petitioner has submitted her application on that date, it was incomplete in the sense that it was without any intercaste marriage certificate. The Petitioner has obtained a certificate from the Tahsildar to the effect that her parents'' marriage was intercaste. When that certificate was refused to be accepted by the Respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

In my view, this writ petition cannot be maintained for two reasons: (1) Admittedly, the application submitted by the Petitioner was incomplete in the sense she did not enclose the required certificate in support of her parents'' inter-caste marriage for the purpose of claiming admission to the course on the basis of special reservation. The certificate itself has been obtained by the Petitioner on 29-7-1999 i.e. long after the last date for receipt of the application forms. A full Bench of this Court in Vinothkumar, R. v. Secy. Selection Committee, Sabarmathi Hostel, K.M.C. Etc. 1995 I L.W. 351 has held that belated applications submitted by the candidates to the course cannot be entertained.

Secondly, the Petitioner''s father belonging to Christian community got himself converted into Hindu Community, seventeen years after his marriage just prior to the issue of certificate i.e. on 9-5-1999. Thereafter, he made an application on 6-7-1999 for the certificate. The Petitioner also made an application on 6-7-1999 before the Tahsildar concerned for the community certificate of his daughter and obtained it on 6-7-1999 stating that his daughter belongs to Hindu Adhi Dravidar.

At the time of marriage the Petitioner''s father was a Christian, which is classified as a backward class community and not as scheduled caste class community. Therefore, it cannot be now contended that it is an intercaste marriage. The special reservation clause in the notification specifically states that the marriage must be between Adhi Dravidar with other community. The Petitioner''s father was not an Adhi Dravidar at the time of marriage. He got converted or reconverted so as to get the benefit as it obviously appears to be. Therefore the certificate obtained by the Petitioner is only for the purpose of claiming admission into the Teacher Training Course under the shelter of the intercaste marriage of her parents. The Supreme Court in Mrs. Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University and others, held that a candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in forward caste and had a march of advantageous life but transplanted in backward caste by adoption or marriage or conversion does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15(4) or under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, as the case may be. Their Lordships observed. "Acquisition of the status of Scheduled Caste etc. by voluntary mobility into the categories would play fraud on the Constitution and would frustrate the benign constitional policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(5) of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) A Full Bench of this Court in Sona Rajan M. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1999 II CTC 1 approved the view of this Court in S. Hari Ganesh and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, wherein it was held that such marriage removed the imbalance in inequalities in society to a greater degree than the marriage between the members of the forward class community and members of backward class community. Any welfare and secular State committed to abolition of untouchability to the ushering in of an egalitarian society, rid of caste and communal barriers, has necessarily to give greater weightage and preference to a marriage in which a member of forward community or a backward class marries a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The status of the children born of such marriage is undoubtedly different from the status given by the society to the children born of inter-caste marriage between the members belonging to the forward class communities and backward class communities. Both at the time of marriage and birth the father and mother of the Petitioner were backward class community. Therefore, the marriage and birth cannot be altered by the subsequent alleged conversion. The Petitioner was born and brought up not as a child of intercaste marriage. Hence, the claim is legally unsustainable and defeats the purpose of reservation. These decisions squarely apply to this case. Petitioner cannot become a member of scheduled caste by her fathers'' reconverting to Hinduism. The Petitioner had the advantageous life and now seeks to replant with her father, who has become a Hindu and by that process Adhi Dravidar. The Petitioner cannot acquire the status by this voluntary process.

The Supreme Court in Madhuru Patel v. Additional Commissioner Tribal Dept. 1995 SC 94 directed the verification and scrutiny of such application and has laid down the procedure to be followed in such cases. The authorities should subject these certificates for such scrutiny and verification.

On both these grounds, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P. No. 19398 of 1999 is also dismissed.