Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), ruling that the organization lacked locus standi to challenge the caste certificate of a Hindu woman married to a Christian man.

A Division bench comprising the Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, delivered the decision, ruling that the matter was between the petitioner and the State and since the State had not appealed the Single Bench's decision, VHP, a third party could not interfere in a service-related dispute.

The case pertained to the grant of an OBC Non-Creamy Layer certificate to a Hindu woman, Kumari Bindhu, who married a Christian man. The certificate, issued in 2006, recognised Kumari as belonging to the Hindu-Nadar caste and classified her under the Non-Creamy Layer category. She had relied on this certificate while applying for the post of Last Grade Servant and subsequently secured employment at the Munsiff’s Court. However, in 2011, the District Collector canceled the certificate, alleging that it had been obtained by fraud and that she had concealed her marriage to a Christian man. Aggrieved, Kumari approached the High Court, challenging the cancellation order. A Single Judge Bench ruled in her favour and reinstated the certificate, treating Kumari as a Hindu-Nadar, and recognising her caste status as an OBC.

Claiming to represent the Hindu-Nadar community, VHP opposed the certificate’s validity. VHP challenged the Single Bench’s decision on the grounds that Kumari, being married to a Christian, was not entitled to OBC benefits meant for the Hindu-Nadar community.

Kumari Bindhu (fourth Respondent/Original Petitioner) questioned the locus standi of VHP to maintain the Writ Appeal, indicating that the State Government did not challenge the Single Bench’s ruling. Kumari cited the Supreme Court’s verdict in Neetu v. State of Punjab and Others, wherein it was held that “a Public Interest Litigation was not maintainable in service matters.”

The court emphasised that if the Hindu-Nadar community had concerns, it could present them to the State authorities, but this did not give VHP the right to litigate the issue in court.

The court finding no perversity or illegality in the Single Bench’s judgment, stated, “once the learned Single Judge examined the materials on record and set aside the State’s order - an order that the State itself has not challenged, the Appellant’s intervention in the writ petition does not confer upon it the locus standi to challenge the judgment…Neither the State nor any person in employment, who may be affected by the status of the Original Petitioner in respect of promotion, etc., has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

 

Cause Title: Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhagh Karyalayam v. State of Kerala & Others [W.A. No. 545 of 2020]