MRS. VALSAMMA PAUL ETC. versus COCHIN UNIVERSITY AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 04-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
MRS. VALSAMMAPAULETC. 
COCHIN UNIVERSITY Af.:!D ORS. ETC. 
()> 
JANUARY 4, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. I-IANSARJA, JJ.] 
Constiturion of India, 1950 : Articles 15(4) and 16(4) 
Reservation-Backward cll!ss-Syrian Catholic Lady o.f forward 
class--/Vfarrying a Latin Catholic Backward class .fisher1nen-Her appoint-
n1e11t against reserved post as lecturer--Held not valid-Held she was llOf 
entitled to the bene.fit o_f reservation given to Latin Catholics o_f back\-vard 
class-Her recognition as me1nber o_f Latin Ca1holics held not relevanl .for the 
purposes o.f her entitle1nent to reservation. 
Social lnteRration : 
Inter-caste, /11ter-sect and Inter-religion marriages--/mportance o.f 
The appellant, a syrian catholic by birth (a forward 'class) was 
married to a person who was latin catholic (Backward class) fishermen). 
She was a appointed as lecturer in the Law Department of Coch.in 
University against a post reserved for latin catholics (backward class 
fishermen). Her appointment was challenged on the ground that she was 
not entitled to the benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Consti-
tution. A Single Judge of the High court held that the appellant's appoint-
ment was not valid. On appeal the appellant relied on the judgment of 
F 
Single Judge in Dr. Kanjamma Alex v. Public Service Commission, (1980) 
KLT 18; which later stood upheld in Public Service Commission v. Dr. 
Kaniamma Alex, (1981) KLT 24. Doubting the correctness of the decision 
of the Division Bench, the matter was referred to the Full Bench. The Full 
Bench in its Judgment held that being a syrian Catholic by birth the 
G 
appellant cannot claim the status of a backward class by marriage. The 
Full Bench further held that the special provisious under Articles 15(4) and 
16(4) of the Constitution intended for the advancement of socially and 
educationally backward classes of citizens cannot be defeated by including 
candidates by alliance or by any other mode of joining the community. 
Accordingly, the Full Bench overruled the decision of the Division Bench 
H 
and of the Single Judge. 
128 
• 
V. PAUL (MRS.) '· COCHIN UNIVERSITY & ORS. 
129 
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that : (i) 
A 
she married a backward class and had entered into the marital home of 
her husband and was received and recognised by the community as a 
member of Latin Catholic. Due to her marriage, she has subjected herself 
and suffered all the environmental disabilities to which her husband was 
subjected and to which all other members of backward class in the region 
are subjected to. She cannot, therefore, be discriminated by denying 
equality given by Article 16(4) of the Constitution; (ii) birth by itself was 
not a determinative factor for claiming Protective disc.rimination given to 
the backward classes. Environmental and social disabilities are also 
relevant factors. 
·on behalf of the respondents it was contended that (1) Articles 16(4) 
and 15(4) are intended to remove handicaps and disadvantages suffered by 
backward class citizens due to social and educational backwardness like 
the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, persons 
B 
c 
who by birth belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward 
Classes alone were entitled to the benefit of Articles 16(4) and 15(4). By 
D 
marriage, adoption or any other device, viz., by procuring false social 
status certificates, they were not eligible to avail of protective discrimina~ 
tion for appointment to an office or to a post under the State or admission 
in educational institution; (ii) mere recognition of and acceptance by the 
community after her marriage is not relevant for the purpose of availing 
E 
of the benefit of Articles 16(4) and 15(4). 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Full Bench had rightly concluded that the appellant 
is not entitled to the benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) as a lecturer 
p 
which post was reserved for the backward class Latin Catholic community. 
The orders of the Division Bench and the Single Judge are set aside. The 
Full Bench judgement stands confirmed. [154-C-D] 
State of Kamataka v. Appa Bali lngale & Ors., AIR (1993) SC 1126; 
C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal & Ors., [1976] 1 SCC 863; Soosai v. Union 
G 
of India, AIR (1986) SC 733; Prindpal, Guntar Medical College, Guntar v. 
Y. Mohan Rao, [1976] 3 SCR 1046; N.E. Hero v. Jahan Ara Jai Pal Singh, 
[1972] 3 SCR 361; Indra 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.