A person is not entitled to the benefit of reservation by marrying someone from the backward caste

Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 12th September 2020

Mrs Valsamma Paul Vs Cochin University And Others

FACTS:

In this case, the petitioner- Mrs. Valsamma Paul, a Syrian catholic of forward caste who had married a Latin catholic of backward caste and had applied for the vacant post in the Legal department of Cochin University which were reserved for the Latin Catholics. She was selected for the vacant post at first, but later a writ petition was filed against her appointment with the purview that a person of forward caste should not be allowed to claim benefits which are reserved for the members of backward caste as they have not faced the same adversaries that backward caste’s have faced and it would be unfair to them. After this writ judgement by the single bench the petitioner appealed in the supreme court.

ISSUE:

Whether under article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, equal opportunities are given to the social and educational backward classes in the society?

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner contended that birth should not be the only factor to be able to gain reservation and also other factors like social and natural disabilities should also be taken under consideration and as now she is the member of the Latin Catholic Community who are fisherman by tradition, as she would face social disadvantageous, she should be treated at par when receiving the benefits of reservation as well. As she was from a forward caste before and now after marrying a Latin catholic, she is subjected to the same treatment that they receive so to not provide her with the benefit of reservation would be discrimination under article 16(4) of the Indian constitution.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

The respondent countered the petitioner’s argument by saying that the petitioner has lived as an individual of forward caste community and had enjoyed all the privileges. Thus, a voluntary marriage into a backward caste family does not make her eligible for the benefits of reservation. The respondent mentioned if the petitioner can prove that she had faced discrimination in the past, only then she will be considered to receive the benefits of reservation. The respondent further mentioned that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are for the benefit of backward class citizens due to social and natural backwardness e.g. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and so the criteria for which this is considered is only birth and no other means like conversion or marriage will be considered.

JUDGEMENT:

The bench of Justice K.Ramaswamy and B.Hansari gave the judgement after observing that the earlier judgement which was passed by the single bench proceeded only on the basis of canon law and several other factors like acceptance in the community were overlooked. So the court gave the final judgement that petitioner is not entitled to reservation under article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian constitution.