Gazette notification not required to correct discrepancy in caste details: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the authorities cannot insist on the publication of a government notification in the official gazette to correct discrepancies noticed in the submission of one's caste details [Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dineesh KM & Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar passed the ruling after taking note of instructions issued by the Kerala government regarding the submission of certificates by candidates claiming to be members of backward classes. The said instructions did not call for a gazette notification, the High Court found."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 Court observed. .However, the Court also observed that the benefit of belonging to a community which was newly added to the OBC list, cannot be applied or claimed retrospectively. "The benefit of that order (adding new community to OBC list) cannot have retrospective application for, the same is not a declaration of a right or status, but it is creation of a new right," the Court held. .The Court passed the ruling in a case where the Kerala Public Service Commission denied reservation benefits to a man (candidate) who wrote the Public Service Commission (PSC) exam.The PSC had noted discrepancies in the submission of his caste details and denied him reservation on that ground. .The candidate had applied for a Grade II post (Attender) in the Homoeopathy Department in the Kottayam district. In his profile, he claimed that he belonged to the Pattariya community which falls under Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. Dineesh also submitted a non-creamy layer certificate showing his caste as Pattariyas. However, the caste mentioned in his SSLC certificate was Padmasaliya.To clarify this discrepancy, the candidate provided a village officer's certificate which stated that he belonged to the Hindu-Padmasaliya (Pattariya) community.The Kerala PSC denied him the OBC reservation benefit on the ground that a gazette notification correcting his caste details would be required on his part. .The candidate then moved the Kerala Administrative Tribunal for relief, which ruled in his favor and said that the village officer’s certificate was sufficient to prove his claim.Aggrieved, the Kerala PSC filed an appeal before the High Court.The PSC pointed out that the government order that included the Padmasali community in the list of OBCs was issued only on May 28, 2020, and that a gazette notification in this regard was issued on August 14, 2022. The PSC's counsel added that the candidate could not claim the benefit of the May 28, 2020 government order or the August 14, 2022 notification as the rank list had been issued on an earlier date - on April 24, 2020. .The candidate's counsel countered that the government order and the subsequent gazette notification including Padmasali community within OBC list had a retrospective effect and that he was entitled to OBC benefits based on that basis..However, the Court disagreed with this contention stating that since Padmasali community was newly added to the OBC list, the benefits of the same cannot have retrospective application. .However, it held that the candidate would be entitled to reservation as Pattariya since the discrepancy in caste certificate was rectified by procuring a certificate to that effect from the appropriate revenue authority. The Court noted that the candidate had produced a copy of his non-creamy layer certificate before the rank list had been published.It found that according to the instructions issued by the State, this was sufficient to prove the verify the candidate's caste.Therefore, it concluded that there was no requirement for the production of a gazette notification by the candidate. "When the above was the requirement for an applicant to claim that he belongs to a different community than what is mentioned in his SSLC, how could the petitioners insist on production of a Gazette notification in that regard?" the Court remarked. .It, therefore, upheld the decision of the Administrative Tribunal and held that the candidate was entitled to get the benefit of reservation under Pattariya community..Advocate PC Sasidharan appeared for the Kerala Public Service Commission. Advocate Varun C Vijay and Divya Chandran represented the candidate.Senior Government Pleader Vineetha B represented other State respondents. .[Read Order]