CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

CASE COMMENT
ON
VALSAMMA PAUL (MRS.)
Vs.
COCHIN UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Submitted by
Nandesh Verma
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Acknowledgement……………………………………… Page 4
2. Act……………………………………………………… Page 5
3. Citation………………………………………………… Page 5
4. Facts………………………………………………………Page 5
5. Issues…………………………………………………… Page 6
6. Argument…………………………………………………Page 6
7. Judgment……………………………………………….. ..Page 7
8. Conclusion………………………………………………. .Page 7
9. Decision …………………………………………………..Page 8
PETITIONER:
Valsammapaul(Mrs.)
Vs.
REPONDENT:
Cochin University and Ors.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 4/01/1996

CITATION:
AIR 1996 SC 1011

BENCH:
K. Ramaswamy & B. L. Hansaria

RULES & HIGHLIGHTS:

- Kerala state subordinate service Rules 14 to 17.

- Constitution of India – Arts. 15, 16, 14,21,38,39 and 46
And Preamble – Social democracy – Secularism – Is bridge between religions. Arts. 15(4)
& 16(4) intended to provide social and economic justice for Dalits, ST’s & OBC’s – Equal
protection provisions under Arts. 14, 15 (1) & 16 (1) should operate consistently with
Arts. 15(4), 16(4), 38, 39, 46 and 335 so as to provide affirmative action for them.
- Reservation to SC/ST – who could claim – Candidate born in forward class –
Transplanted in Backward class by marriage, adoption or any other voluntary act – Not
entitled to benefit of reservation.
- Special Marriage Act, 1954. Sec 4 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Secs. 5 & 7 – Hindu law –
Marriage – Strict shastric injunctions stand modified by statutory prescriptions.
- Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Secs.2 (d) and 12 – Human rights for women –
Comprehends gender equality – Convention for elimination of all forms of
discrimination against women.
 - Caste or religion of wife upon inter-caste/ Inter-religion marriage – Recognition by the
family or community not a pre-condition.

FACTS:
Two posts of lecturers in Law Department of Cochin University were notified for
recruitment, one of which was reserved for Latin Catholics (Backward Class Fisherman). The
appellant, a Syrian Catholic (a Forward class), having married a Latin Catholic, had applied
for selection as a reserved candidate. The university selected her on that basis and
accordingly appointed her against the reserved post. Her appointment was questioned by
another candidate by filing a writ petition praying for a direction to the university to appoint
her in place of the appellant to the said post. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the
petition holding that the appointment should be made strictly in accordance with Rules 14
& 17 of the Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules. When appeals were filed, the appellant
cited the judgment of a Single Judge in Kunjamma Alex (Dr.) v. Public Service Commission
[1980 KLT 24]. Doubting the correctness of the decision of all the Division Bench in Dr.
Kunjamma Alex case, the reference to the Full Bench was made. The Full Bench in the
impugned Judgment held that though the appellant was married according to the Roman
law, the appellant, being a Syrian Catholic by birth, she could not by marriage with a Latin
Catholic (Backward Class), become a member of that class nor could she claim the status as
a Backward Class by marriage.

ISSUES:
Whether a lady marrying a SC, ST or OBC citizen, or one transplanted by adoption or any
other voluntary act, ipso facto, becomes entitled to claim reservation under 1Art. 15(4) or
2Art. 16(4), of constitution of India, as the case may be?

ARGUMENT

1 Under Art.15 (4) Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any
special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
2 Under Art.16 (4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of
appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not
adequately represented in the services under the State
PETITIONER:
3Contention arguing that birth by itself is not a determinative factor for claiming discrimination
given to the backward classes. Environmental and social disability are also relevant factor to
which the appellant has volunteered by subjecting herself to them and that, therefore, she is
entitled to me same treatment as is available to the Latin Catholics (Fishermen) to which she
was transplanted by marriage according to Canon Law.

REPONDENT:
Respondent contended that 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 SC and ST. Therefore, persons who by birth belong to SC, ST or Backward
class along are entitled to the benefit of Arts. 16(4) and 15(4). By marriage, adoption or any
other device, viz.. By procuring false social status certificates, they are not eligible to avail of
protective discrimination for appointment to any office or to a post under the State or
admission in education institution.

JUDGEMENT

RATIO:
1. The special provision of Arts.-15(4) and 16(4) of the constitution intended for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens cannot be
detected by including candidates by alliance or by any other mode of joining the
Community.
2. Equal protection guaranteed by 4Arts.-14, 15(1), 16(1) is required to operate
consistently with Arts.-15(4), 16(4), 38, 39, 46 and 335 of the constitution vide per
majority in 5Indira Sawheng V. Union of India. Known as Mandal case in other words
equal protection requires affirmation action for those unequal handicapped due to
historical facts of untouchability practiced for millennium which is abolished by 6Art.-17.
3. By conversion no one can gain the benefit of reservation, the recognition by community
is precondition.

3 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/828643/ visited on 2/3/2017.

4
Under Art.14 Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex or place of birth.
5
AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454
6
Under Art.17 Abolition of Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement of
any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
OBITOR DICTA:
The claim of reservation should not be determined by birth of any person. Those
environmental and social disabilities are also relevant factor to which that theme of reservation
may be decided. On one can be judged on the basis of his birth in any sections of society. The
surroundings of individual are a way to decide his eligibility in the sense of reservation. The
caste which is based on the result of birth should not be soul criteria of reservation.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Wife becomes member of the caste of her husband. Recognition by community,

parents, not pre-requisite.
2. Lady belonging to a non-reserved class marrying a SC, ST or OBC citizen or a person
belonging to non-reserved class transplanted by adoption or any other voluntary act to
a family belonging to such reserved class. Held, that would not ipso facto to entitle the
lady /adopted to claim reservation under Arts. 15(4) 16(4), as the case may be, in view
of the advantageous start in life availed by her/him.
3. Inter-caste, inter-religion marriages would help in attaining secularism and egalitarian
objectives and promoting national unity. Equality, liberty and fraternity together form
the foundation of social democracy.

In other words the Court concluded that the recognition of the appellant as a member
of the Latin Catholics would not, therefore, be relevant for the purpose of her
entitlement to the reservation under Art. 16(4), for the reasons that she, as a member
of the Forward Caste, had an advantageous start in life and after her completing
education and becoming major, married Yesudas, and so, she is not entitled to the
facility of reservation given to the Latin Catholics, a Backward Class.

DECISION
Appeals are accordingly dismissed. The order of the Division Bench and the single judge
stand set aside. The Full Bench judgment stands confirmed.