The petitioner applied to the 1st respondent for selection to the post of 'Driver' in the 2nd respondent Corporation, pursuant to notification published on 23.06.1993. He was selected and included in the rank list prepared by the PSC on 11.5.2000, assigning rank No.4737. On that basis the petitioner was advised for appointment as per Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, he was advised for appointment in the turn reserved for Nadar/LC. The endorsement in Ext.P3 postal cover in which the advise was sent will support the said claim. However, in Ext.P2 it is specified that the advise is made provisionally subject to the rules of reservation and it is liable to be altered. Based on Ext.P2 advise the petitioner joined service of the 2nd respondent Corporation on 29.7.2000. KSRTC had published Ext.P4 gradation list of Drivers as on 01.01.2007. The petitioner noticed that many of his juniors in the rank list of the PSC, including respondents 3 and 4 is given higher position in Ext.P4 gradation list, without any proper justification. When the petitioner approached the PSC seeking clarification under the Right to Information Act, Ext.P6 reply was issued stating that eventhough the petitioner was included as rank No.4737 noting his community as “Nadar”, as per the “Non-Creamy Layer Certificate” produced by the petitioner he is not included in the Creamy Layer of Latin Catholic community. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for reservation provided for 'Nadars'. The petitioner had preferred an appeal under the Right to Information Act against Ext.P6, which is replied through Ext.P8 further clarifying that in the application submitted by the petitioner he had shown to his community as “Nadar-OBC”. But the petitioner had failed to produce any certificate or other documents entitling him for the benefit of reservation under the community of ”Nadar-OBC”. Therefore, the petitioner was advised only under the open competition turn. According to the petitioner, the reply given by the PSC is totally unsustainable. The petitioner contended that the PSC is not entitled to change the advise list already forwarded, whereby communal rights protected by statute cannot be denied to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 seniority list and seeking a declaration to the effect that, he was entitled to the benefit of reservation and to be advised in the reservation turn for Latin Catholic assigning appropriate position in the rank list. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is mentioned that, in the application submitted to PSC the petitioner had shown his community as “Nadar-OBC” in Column No.4(a) and in Column No.9. Whereas the religion shown in Column No.4(b) is as 'LC X'ian'. It is also mentioned that the community noted in the SSLC Book of the petitioner is as “RC X'ian Nadar”, which is a forward community. But the petitioner had produced community certificate to the effect that he belongs to 'Latin Catholic' community, which is designated as a backward class. But he does not belong to the category of Creamy Layer in the said community. It is stated that the rank list was prepared on 11.05.2000, without working out the communal rotation, because the KSRTC was putting pressure for advising candidates immediately. Subsequently steps were taken to work out seniority based on communal rotation. At this juncture the discrepancy in the community of the petitioner was noticed. The claim in the application was that he belongs to “Nadar-OBC” community. But the certificate produced shown that he belongs to “Latin Catholic” community. At the same time the school records shows that the petitioner belongs to “RC X'ian Nadar”, which is a forward religion. Because of the above discrepancies in the claim of the petitioner, he was advised only in the open quota, is the contention. It is further contended that the complaint now raised highly belated since the advise was made as early as in the year 2000.
3. Contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to the religion of “LC X'ian” and it was clearly shown in the application submitted in Column No.4(b). He had also produced community/Non Creamy Layer Certificate as per Ext.P1 to show that he belongs to the community of Latin Catholic and he does not belong to the category of Creamy Layer in that community. It is pointed out that on the basis of the said application and Ext.P1 certificate he was assigned rank No.4737 in the list prepared on 11.05.2000 giving reservation benefit provided for “Nadar/LC”. It is admitted in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent that the community assigned to the petitioner in the rank list was “Nadar”. Contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to “Nadar” caste coming within Latin Catholic community. Merely because he had mentioned the community in Column No.4(a) as “Nadar-OBC” the reservation benefit available to “Latin Catholic-Nadar” cannot be denied to the petitioner, is the contention.
4. Even accepting the contention that the rank list was prepared on 11.05.2000 without working out the communal rotation, it is evident that the petitioner's name was included in the rank list in the position based on reservation as “Nadar”. It is not at all discernible that as to when the final advise was made, after working out the rotation. There is evidenced to show that, service book was opened by the 2nd respondent Corporation showing the community of the petitioner as “Latin Catholic” included in OBC category. Contention of the petitioner is that he was never informed about any change in the ranking position until Ext.P4 gradation list was published. The only advise which was within the knowledge of the petitioner is the advise made on the basis of the rank list prepared on 11.05.2000. Evidently the 1st respondent had changed the ranking position denying the benefit of reservation, based on the alleged discrepancy in the application with that of Ext.P1 certificate. But the petitioner was never intimated about any such change or he was not given any opportunity to explain about such discrepancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had subsequently produced a Gazette Notification effecting change in the SSLC Book, with respect to the community noted therein. According to the petitioner a copy of the Gazette Notification was produced prior to finalization of the ranking position working out the rotation. Since the petitioner came to know about the change in the ranking position only on publishing Ext.P4, he cannot be blamed for the delay caused in challenging the same.
5. When the petitioner had shown his religion as “Latin Catholic” and produced community certificate to that effect, whether he can be denied the benefit of reservation is the question. The denial was on the basis that he had shown his community as “Nadar OBC” in the application. But the contention of the petitioner is that, he belongs to “Nadar” caste which forms part of the “Latin Catholic” religion. Under such circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall decide the question afresh as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered in the rotation under the turn reserved for “Latin Catholic” community, which is entitled for reservation. It shall be done with opportunity provided to the petitioner for personal hearing and for production of materials if any available.
6. Therefore the writ petition is hereby disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for re-fixation of his ranking position in the final advise list by inclusion in the turn reserved for “Latin Catholic” community. It shall done by the competent authority in the 1st respondent Commission with opportunity of personal hearing afforded to the petitioner, at the earliest possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
7. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 1st respondent and shall be communicated to the 2nd respondent forthwith. Needless to observe that the 2nd respondent shall effect change if any in the ranking position in the gradation list of Drivers in accordance with the decision which will be intimated by the 1st respondent.
Sd/-
C.K ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE R.AV