In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has ruled that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) cannot insist on a Gazette notification to resolve discrepancies in caste names appearing on school certificates. This ruling was delivered in the case of Kerala Public Service Commission vs. Dinesh K M (O.P.(KAT) No. 406 of 2023) by a bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute regarding the reservation claim made by Dinesh K M, a 31-year-old applicant from Ernakulam, who applied for the post of Attender Grade II in the Homoeopathy Department, Kottayam District. Dinesh’s application was initially accepted by the KPSC, and he was ranked 14th on the merit list published on April 28, 2020. However, the Commission denied him the reservation benefit under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category due to discrepancies in the caste name on his documents.
While Dinesh’s SSLC (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) listed his caste as “Padmasaliya,” his non-creamy layer certificate issued by the Village Officer mentioned “Pattariyas.” The KPSC contended that to claim the OBC reservation, Dinesh needed a Gazette notification to officially correct the caste name. Aggrieved by this decision, Dinesh approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which ruled in his favor. The KPSC then challenged the KAT’s order before the Kerala High Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The central legal issue before the Kerala High Court was whether the KPSC could demand a Gazette notification for a candidate to rectify a discrepancy in caste names between school certificates and community certificates. The Commission argued that such a notification was essential to validate the candidate’s claim for reservation benefits. The respondent’s counsel, Advocates Varun C. Vijay and Divya Chandran, countered that a certificate from the revenue authority was sufficient and no Gazette notification was required under existing rules.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Kerala High Court upheld the KAT’s decision, asserting that the requirement of a Gazette notification was not mandated by law. The bench referred to Annexure R2(a), which outlines the conditions for submitting certificates by candidates claiming to belong to backward classes. The court noted:
“What is thereby insisted on is the production of a certificate from the revenue authority. It is specified that no Gazette notification is required to support the claim that the applicant belongs to a community other than what is mentioned in the SSLC.”
The court emphasized that since Dinesh had already produced a valid certificate from the Village Officer (Annexure A3) before the publication of the ranked list, he should have been granted the benefit of reservation. The judges remarked:
“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 the production of a Gazette notification in that regard?”
The court concluded that the Kerala Public Service Commission’s insistence on a Gazette notification was unfounded and not in line with the procedural requirements. It ruled that the KPSC should not have denied Dinesh the benefit of reservation and dismissed the petition brought by the KPSC.
