High Court of KeralaWP(C)/16032/2006dismissed as infructuous

Subhadramma T.G. v. State Of Kerala

2015-07-06Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2015/15TH ASHADHA, 1937 W.P.(C).No.16032 of 2006 (H) ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- --------------------------

1. SUBHADRAMMA T.G., D/O.GOPALAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATHIRICKAL HOUSE, MEMUTTOM, PATHIPPALLY PO., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 589.

2. ANANDHU.S., S/O.SUBHADRAMMA T.G., AGED 6 YEARS, MINOR R/A. PATHIRICKAL HOUSE, MEMUTOM PATHIPPALLY PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 589, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NEXT FRIEND SUBHADRAMMA.T.G., D/O.GOPALAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATHIRICKAL HOUSE, MEMUTTOM, PATHIPPALLY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 589. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR.

RESPONDENT(S):- ----------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

3. THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, GITB CAMPUS, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 011.

4. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHATHAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI.

R1 & R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.K. SANTHAMMA. R3 & R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.V.V.ASOKAN.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 06-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.16032 of 2006-H ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 06th day of July, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioners were before this Court, claiming 'Schedule Tribe' status to the 2nd petitioner, being the caste status of the 1st petitioner, the mother.

2. The petitioners were before this Court only since the 2nd petitioner was denied the Scheduled Tribe status for reason of his father belonging to the 'Pulluva' community on the ground that there is a presumption, of the caste of the progeny, being the caste of the father. In the present case, the 1st petitioner and her husband are said to have separated and the 2nd petitioner is said to have been brought up by the 1st petitioner alone. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, now the 2nd petitioner is issued with a certificate, showing the caste as 'Scheduled Tribe'. In such circumstance, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is closed as infructuous.

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

Vku/- [ true copy ]