Judgment :- Om Prakash, C.J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against the judgment dated March 6,1996 is: whether the petitioner in the Original Petitions can be deprived of the benefit available to the Scheduled Caste candidates. 3. It is not disputed that as per the Government Order dated 25.1.1977 (Ext. P6) in O.P. No. 11231/95, the children horn to inter-caste marriages are entitled to educational concessions given to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates, as the case may be, provided either of the parents of such candidates belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, as the case may be. 4. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the mother of the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The father of the petitioner belongs to another community, which is not covered by Scheduled castes. 5. By order dated 31.3.1995 (Ext. P5 in O.P. No. 11231/95), the Government held that in the S.S.L.C. book of the petitioner, the caste of the petitioner was recorded as 'Nadar', that is, the caste which her father belongs to. It is for this reason, the Government took the stand that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit, available to the Scheduled Caste candidates. 6. Since it is not disputed that a child born to either of the parents belonging to Scheduled Caste, is entitled to the benefit available to the Scheduled Caste candidates, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit, available to the Scheduled Caste candidates and this is what has been found by the learned single Judge. What is relevant is whether either parent of the child belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is admitted in this case that the mother of the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and that fact, is enough to entitle the petitioner to claim the benefit, available to the Scheduled Caste candidates. The appeals fail and are dismissed.