Hindu Maravar Community Not Included Under OBC Category In Kerala, Cannot Claim Benefits Of Reservation: Kerala High Court

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V observed that the 4^th respondent was not entitled to claim the benefit of OBC reservation as Hindu Maravar Community does not belong to the OBC category in Kerala.

“In view of the principles laid down above, the 4th respondent, who would not satisfy the criteria of being an OBC in the State of Kerala, would not qualify for the 10th turn, which has been set apart for an OBC. The Hindu Maravar Community does not hold recognition or inclusion as an OBC category in the State of Kerala. In that view of the matter, the selection of the 4th respondent on the ground that he is a member of the OBC community is clearly illegal.”

Background Facts

The petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Community. He has approached the High Court seeking direction for appointment to the post of Junior Scientist- Wild Life Biology at the Kerala Forest Research Institute and also challenging the appointment of the 4^th respondent in that post. For appointment to the post of Scientist -Wild Life Biology, 10 candidates were shortlisted for the interview including the petitioner and the 4^th respondent. After the interview, selection list was published and the name of 4^th respondent was included as he fell in the OBC category. The petitioner, aggrieved by the selection list submitted representation contending that the 4^th respondent was overaged and that he was not an OBC, declared as such in the State of Kerala.

The petitioner alleged that the 4^th respondent was aged 38 years, 10 months, and 19 days and the upper age limit for the post was 35 years. It was also alleged that the 4^th respondent was from Tamil Nadu and belonged to the Hindu Maravar community which does not hold recognition or inclusion as an OBC category in Kerala. It was alleged that the 4^th respondent was appointed based on her OBC status in Tamil Nadu and was not entitled to claim the benefit of OBC reservation in Kerala.

The respondents, in their counter affidavit submitted that even if the 4^th respondent was found ineligible, the post fell for an OBC candidate and the petitioner cannot be appointed. The 4the respondent submitted that he was entitled for age relaxation as he belonged to OBC category.

Court Observations

The Court found that the upper age limit for applying to the post of Junior Scientist was 35 years. It noted that the age relaxation can be claimed by candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities. It noted that the 4^th respondent was over 39 years old. The Court noted that the application submitted by the 4^th respondent disclosed that he applied in the OBC (Hindu Maravar) category and that his domicile was shown as Tamil Nadu. The Court found that the 4^th respondent sought for age relaxation as he belonged to the OBC category. The Court noted that even for a person who was entitled for OBC reservation, the age relaxation would only be for three years. It stated that the 4^th respondent cannot claim age relaxation as he was over 39 years of age as on the date of the notification.

The legal issue dealt by the Court was whether the 4^th respondent who was from Tamil Nadu eligible to claim OBC reservation in Kerala as Hindu Maravar community was not included as an OBC category in Kerala. The Court relied upon the Apex Court decision in Action Committee on the issue of Caste Certificate to Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India and another (1994) to state that persons cannot claim the benefits of SC/ST reservations when they migrate to another state if those states do not recognize such benefits. It noted that when persons who were eligible for reservation in one state migrate to another state, they should understand that the disadvantaged and disabled communities of those states will receive the benefits of reservation conferred by that state.

“It was held that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled to in order to become equals with others, but those who go to other areas should ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas.”

The Court noted that the Division Bench in Abdul Haleem v State of Kerala (2022) followed the Apex Court decision in MCD v Veena (2001) to state that a particular caste or particular group was recognized as OBC in a State based on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste or group in that particular State. It also relied upon Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Others (2021) to state that a person belonging to the OBC category from Karnataka cannot claim reservation under a notification issued by the Kerala Government.

On the above observations, the Court held that the 4^th respondent was not entitled to claim appointment based on OBC reservation in Kerala as Hindu Maravar community was not included as an OBC category in Kerala. The Court further held that the petitioner was also not eligible to be appointed to the post of Junior Scientist as the post was specifically reserved for a candidate belonging to the OBC category. However, the Court appreciated the efforts taken by the petitioner in bringing this matter before the Court. It stated that the petitioner would not have been compelled to approach the Court if the respondents had acted fairly and followed the laws laid down by the Apex Court. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner as litigation cost.

“Towards compensation to the petitioner and for driving him to litigation, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/- to the petitioner, which shall be paid within a period of one month from today.”

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocate Aysha Abraham and Yeshwanth Shenoy

Counsel for the respondents: Senior Counsel N N Sugunapalan instructed by Advocate Sujin S, Standing Counsel C K Prasad and P C Sasidharan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 612

Case title: Rajan P v State of Kerala

Case number: WP(C) NO. 23667 OF 2022

Click here to download/read Judgment