Judgment : A short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is: Whether the Petitioner who, by birth, belongs to Balija caste, is entitled to claim that she belongs to `Adi Dravida (SC) by virtue of her marriage with a person belonging to `Adi Dravida community? Answer to the above question is in the negative for the following reasons: 2. Both the learned Senior Counsel Sri K Kasturi and Sri Ramdas, appearing for the petitioner, respondent No.3/Insurance Company, respectively relied upon the following decisions; VALSAMMA PAUL (MRS.) vs COCHIN UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS (1996) 3 SCC 545 ); STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs MILIND AND OTHERS (2001) 1 SCC 4 ) ; and R VISHWANATHA PILLAI vs STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2004) 2 SCC 105 ) 3. Sri K Kasturi submitted that on 6.1977, the petitioner married to one Shankar Nergi, who belongs to Adi Dravida community (Scheduled Caste) and therefore she belongs to Adi Dravida community and on that basis, the Tahsildar of Udupi also issued a caste certificate. On 28.1979 the respondent No.3/Insurance Company appointed the petitioner as Assistant, as against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste. The petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on 28.2015 and this juncture cancelling the caste certificate by District Caste Verification Committee (in short "the DCVC") granted in 1977, on the basis of report dated 21.2001 submitted by the CRE Cell, is bad in law. Furthermore, the respondent No.2/Appellate Authority also erred in confirming the order of DCVC. He relied upon the decision rendered in N.E. HORO vs SMT. JAHANARA JAIPAL SINGH ( AIR 1972 SC 1840 ), and other decisions. 4. Sri Ramdas submitted that an enquiry was held against the petitioner as she had produced a false caste certificate and secured a job, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste and the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. Subsequently, after complying with the formalities, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service with immediate effect by an order dated 110.2004 (Annexure-R5). But the petitioner evaded the service of the order of dismissal sent to her by Respondent No3. The order sent to the petitioner by RPAD/ courier was returned un-served with an endorsement "Absent/shifted". Subsequently, after complying with the formalities, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service with immediate effect by an order dated 110.2004 (Annexure-R5). But the petitioner evaded the service of the order of dismissal sent to her by Respondent No3. The order sent to the petitioner by RPAD/ courier was returned un-served with an endorsement "Absent/shifted". On the other hand, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition and taken an ex-parte interim order on 210.2004 directing the respondent No.3/ Insurance Company not to dismiss the petitioner her from service until further orders. He submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Valsamma Paul case reported in (1996) 3 SCC 545 and various other decisions, there is no merit in the writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 argued in support of the order cancelling the caste certificate dated 3 0.7.1977 issued by the Tahsildar of Udupi and confirming the same by the respondent No.2/Appellate Authority. 6. No doubt, in N. E. HORO vs SMT. JOHANARA JAIPAL SINGH (supra), the Apex Court held that even if a female is not a member of a tribe, by virtue of birth, she having been married to a tribal, after due observance of all formalities and after obtaining the approval of the elders of the bride would belong to the tribal community to which her husband belongs on the analogy of the wife taking the husbands domicile. But, in VALSAMMA PAUL vs COCHIN UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS (2005) 2 SCC 244 ), the Apex Court has held that a lady belonging to a non-reserved class marrying a SC, ST or OBC citizen would not ipso facto entitle to claim reservation under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) or 330 or 332 of the Constitution of India. The decision rendered in Horo case was overruled in SOBHA HYMAVATHI DEVI vs SETTI GANGADHARA SWAMY AND OTHERS 2005 (2) SCC 244 following the decision rendered in VALSAMMA PAUL (MRS.) vs COCHIN UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS. In R. VISHWANATHA PILLAI vs STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2004) 2 SCC 105 ), Pillai was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on the basis of a false certificate, as against the post reserved for SC/ST. The Committee held that caste certificate was false. The High Court as well as the Supreme Court upheld the same. Later on, Pillai was terminated from service. The Committee held that caste certificate was false. The High Court as well as the Supreme Court upheld the same. Later on, Pillai was terminated from service. The Apex Court held that Article 311 would not attract at all. In ADDL. GENERAL MANAGER-HUMANRESOURCE, BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. vs SURESH RAMAKRISHNA BURDE (2007) 5 SCC 336 ), where a post reserved for ST was secured by a candidate on the basis of a false certificate and the same was detected 9 long years after the appointment. A further period of 13 years was spent in enquiry and litigation. The Apex Court held the termination of service at that stage held sufficient. In SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES AND OTHERS vs R VALASINA BABU (2007) 2 SCC 335 ), the Apex Court held that the caste certificate having been cancelled, the appointee cannot be allowed to continue in service as Postal Assistant as against the post reserved for Scheduled Castes, and it was not necessary to initiate any domestic enquiry against the appointee. In SANDHYA THAKUR vs VIMLA DEVI KUSHWAH AND OTHERS (2005) 2 SCC 731 ) the Apex Court held that Sandhya Thakur, who by birth, did not belong to a backward class or community. Therefore, she would not be entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward class or a community, merely on the basis of her marriage to a male of that community. In STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs MILIND AND OTHERS (SUPRA), the Apex Court held that Milind, who belongs to "Koshti" caste, was granted a certificate as he belongs to "Halba", which is a Scheduled Tribe. On that basis, he got admission to MBBS Degree course. Higher authorities reported that the certificate was incorrect. Dispute as to the correctness of the certificate came before the Supreme Court after lapse of 15 years. The Supreme Court held the caste certificate to be illegal, (sparing the degree obtained or appointment, if any,) he would not take advantage of the certificate as Scheduled Caste candidate any further. In the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Dispute as to the correctness of the certificate came before the Supreme Court after lapse of 15 years. The Supreme Court held the caste certificate to be illegal, (sparing the degree obtained or appointment, if any,) he would not take advantage of the certificate as Scheduled Caste candidate any further. In the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. vs RAVI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR & ANR (2006 AIR SCW 6093), rendered with reference to Maharashtra S C., S T., D T., N T., O B C and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2001, the apex court held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee can go into the question as to whether the caste certificate was rightly issued or not. In Bank of India And Another vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar And Others ( AIR 2005 SC 3395 ), an appointment was made n the basis of a false certificate, and ten years later, a report was made stating that the caste certificate was obtained falsely. The Supreme Court held that a reference made to caste verification committee does not invalidate and the termination of the candidate from service is proper. 7. In viewof the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above-said cases, the DCVC was justified in cancelling the petitioners caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Udupi. The Appellate Authority has rightly confirmed the order of DCVC relying on the Government of India notification bearing No.35/1 /72/RU (SCT.V) dated 5.1975. The notification at Annexure-H says that no person, who was not a SC or ST by birth, will be deemed to be a member of a SC or ST, merely because he or she has married to a person belonging to SC or ST. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, there is no illegality in the above-said notification. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that she belongs to `Adi Dravida community by virtue of her marriage with a person belonging to Adi Dravida. There is no illegality in the impugned orders made by the respondents. 8. The petitioner had a bonafide belief that she was entitled to claim that she belongs to the caste of her husband by virtue of her marriage. There is no illegality in the impugned orders made by the respondents. 8. The petitioner had a bonafide belief that she was entitled to claim that she belongs to the caste of her husband by virtue of her marriage. The original application submitted by her to the Tahsildar seeking grant of caste certificate and that the application made to respondent No.3/Insurance Company seeking appointment were not produced. The petitioners SSLC cumulative record, which was produced before the respondent-No. 3 at the time her appointment shows her caste as `Balija. Hence, it can not be said that she had made any misrepresentation before the authorities or suppressed the fact from the concerned. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any misconduct of such a nature. 9. On 7.2008 the petitioner filed a memo, without prejudice, stating that in the event of holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, as prayed for, she may be permitted continue in service without any further advantage as Scheduled Caste or permit her to resign with terminal benefits. 10. Merely because the petitioner was continued in service for more than 25 years, it is not a good ground to permit the petitioner to continue in service, when she does not belong to the caste as against which she was appointed. The undertaking given by the petitioner that she would not claim any further advantage, as a Scheduled Caste cannot be accepted. At the best it would meet the ends of justice to permit her to resign voluntarily. 11. Inthe result, the Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to resign from service voluntarily by tendering resignation letter before 30th of November 2008 and take all service terminal benefits. If the petitioner failed to tender resignation before 30.11.2008, she is deemed to be dismissed from service, as per the impugned order dated 110.2004 (Annexure-R5) with effect from 1st December 2008, No costs.