Judgment: The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P5 and to consider his candidature in respect of the selection and appointment to the post of Municipal Secretary Grade III notified by the Kerala Public Service Commission, treating Exhibit P3 certificate issued pursuant to Exhibit P4 judgment as the proper certificate. 2. With regard to the factual matrix, it is to be noted that the petitioner participated in the selection and appointment for the post of Municipal Secretary Grade III and on coming out successful in the written test conducted by the PSC, he was called for the interview vide Exhibit P5 memo. On proving the credentials, the petitioner got placed at Sl.No.1 among the Other Christian (OX in short) in the supplementary list and the rank list was published by the PSC vide Exhibit P2, which came into force on 31-12-2004. 3. It has to be borne in mind, as per Exhibit P1, the petitioner was directed to produce the relevant certificates including that of the caste/community and as to his Non-Creamy layer status. In fact, Exhibit P3 Non-Creamy layer certificate produced by the petitioner was issued by the Tahsildar, Kollam pursuant to Exhibit P4 judgment passed by this Court on 28-11-2000. On production of Exhibit P3 certificate, the first respondent included the name of the petitioner in Exhibit P2 rank list as provisional. Later vide Exhibit P5 communication dated 13-2-2007, the petitioner was required to produce a "fresh non-creamy layer certificate (unconditional)" stating that the certificate already produced by the petitioner was only a provisional one which happened to be issued only as per the direction of this Court in Exhibit P4 Judgment. Sustainability/justifiability of Exhibit P5 has been questioned in this writ petition. 4. As borne by the materials on record, the petitioner has no case that he is to be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate or to extend any benefit extendable to the members of such caste/community and on the other hand, his claim is limited to the effect that he is liable to be treated as "Other Christian" (OX in short) as stated in the application supported by his S.S.L.C. Book and such other records. 5. The claim of the petitioner for advising him against the vacancy on the basis of his placement in Exhibit P2 rank list on the strength of Exhibit P3 certificate is vehemently opposed by the respondents. 5. The claim of the petitioner for advising him against the vacancy on the basis of his placement in Exhibit P2 rank list on the strength of Exhibit P3 certificate is vehemently opposed by the respondents. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that no reliance could be placed on Exhibit P3 certificate as it was only a provisional one and that it was issued to comply with the directions contained in Exhibit P4 judgment. It is pointed out that the petitioner was living according to the rites of Christian Latin Catholic Community and was a member of Latin Catholic church as reported by the Village Officer and further that the petitioner and the members of his family being worshipers of Latin Catholic church, the fourth respondent was not in a position to issue "Christian Latin Parava Convert Community certificate" to him, under any circumstance. 6. The first respondent/PSC has filed a separate counter affidavit almost in similar lines and has sought to deny any relief to the petitioner, referring to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in RAJAN v. STATE OF KERALA [2007(1) KLT 730]. It is argued that the decision rendered by the Single Judge of this Court in O.P.No.19195 of 2002 (following which Exhibit P8 judgment was passed) has already been set aside by the Division Bench while answering the reference made by another learned Judge doubting the correctness of the decision rendered by the other learned Judge. Placing reliance upon the above decision rendered by the Division Bench, both the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC assert that Exhibit P3 certificate produced by the petitioner having obtained pursuant to the direction given by this Court in Exhibit P4 judgment cannot be pressed into service at all. I have also had the privilege of hearing Sri. Santhosh Kumar, who is the Special Government Pleader for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 7. By virtue of the authoritative pronouncement of the legal position by the Division Bench of this Court in 2007(1) KLT 730, nobody can claim it, as a matter of right, that his/her Caste is to be confirmed merely on the basis of the entry in the S.S.L.C. book or in the church records. 7. By virtue of the authoritative pronouncement of the legal position by the Division Bench of this Court in 2007(1) KLT 730, nobody can claim it, as a matter of right, that his/her Caste is to be confirmed merely on the basis of the entry in the S.S.L.C. book or in the church records. Referring to the facts and evidence placed before the Division Bench, it was observed that several malpractices with regard to the issuance of the caste certificates were being followed by the beneficiaries and the unscrupulous authorities in the area to siphon out the benefits ear- marked to a particular class of people who are actually entitled for the same by virtue of their caste/community status. The materials placed before the Division Bench persuaded the Court to draw the inference that the petitioners in the concerned writ petitions were not entitled to get the certificates as claimed by them, particularly in view of the adverse reports brought out in the enquiry conducted by the vigilance officer, KIRTADS and other authorities concerned. To appreciate the dictum laid down therein, it is very much beneficial to refer to paragraphs 3, 4 and 6, which are extracted below: "3. Detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of second respondent stating that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner and his family belongs to Christian Latin Catholic Community and the parents of the petitioner made a false declaration while admitting the petitioners in the school to the effect that they belong to the Christian Parava Community and thereby there occurred entries as Christian Parava in the SSLC Books. Further, it is also stated that it is for the petitioners to produce sufficient proof with regard to the caste status at the time of local enquiry. But the petitioners failed to produce sufficient material except SSLC Book so as to prove that they belong to Christian Parava. Further it is also stated that enquiry revealed that the parents of the petitioner also originally belonged to Christian Latin Catholic Community and they are not scheduled caste converts as claimed. 4. But the petitioners failed to produce sufficient material except SSLC Book so as to prove that they belong to Christian Parava. Further it is also stated that enquiry revealed that the parents of the petitioner also originally belonged to Christian Latin Catholic Community and they are not scheduled caste converts as claimed. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of first respondent by the Additional Secretary, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development Department stating that the anthropological investigation conducted by KIRTADS during the last two decades has revealed that some persons belonging to Latin Catholic community styling themselves as Christian Parava are obtaining false certificates with ulterior motives. Further it is stated that because of the mere entry of the caste name in the school record as Christian Parava one cannot claim that he belongs to a particular caste. Further it is also asserted that the petitioners predecessors did not belong to Scheduled Caste Paravan Community. Report of the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS was also made available. It has been stated that in Kollam District, persons belonging to Latin Catholic community have obtained certificates stating that they belong to Parava of Bharathar Christians and snatching away the benefits available to Scheduled Caste Community. Scheduled Castes converted to Christian Community it is stated are listed under the Other Eligible Communities (OEC) which would enable them to enjoy all education concessions normally allowed to Scheduled Castes. 6. We are of the view in the light of the report submitted by the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS and in the absence of any reliable evidence to show that petitioners ancestors belonged to Scheduled Caste community rejection of the creamy layer certificate by the Tahsildar is justified. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.19195 of 2002 and the other connected matters stating that Latin Catholic community is entitled to get certificate as Christian Parava or Bharatha. The Tahsildar in his letter dt. 30-3-05 (Ext.R2(a) has stated that the Caste is a fact which can be ascertained by local enquiry. Non creamy layer certificate cannot be issued based on the caste noted in the SSLC book/Educational records. Caste noted in SSLC book is not a binding evidence for proving caste. Certificate issued by the parish priest of local church also is not a binding evidence to prove caste status. Non creamy layer certificate cannot be issued based on the caste noted in the SSLC book/Educational records. Caste noted in SSLC book is not a binding evidence for proving caste. Certificate issued by the parish priest of local church also is not a binding evidence to prove caste status. Most of the persons of the locality, knowing the fact that they will not get Parava/Bharatha Xian certificates as these communities are not in this locality, are now trying to correct the caste noted in SSLC book as Latin Catholic. In fact the parish priest, who issued Parava Xian certificate to the applicant, is also issuing Latin Catholic certificate to such persons in the same locality simultaneously. Local enquiry further revealed that people in the suburban area of that church are Latin Catholics. There are no Parava Xian/Bharatha Xian communities in the area." 8. It was on the basis of the solid materials placed for consideration before the Division Bench that the Court observed that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge making a generalisation as to the issue involved and as to the issuance of the certificates as a matter of course was not correct. However, the Division Bench, foreseeing the chances of genuine and appropriate cases did not choose to foreclose the door of truth forever and made a specific observation in Paragaph 7 as given below:- "We make it clear that if the petitioners still feel that they really belong to Scheduled Castes community it is for them to produce the relevant materials before the authorities concerned and establish their claim. We make it clear that if the petitioners want the community certificate, stating that they belong to Parava/Bharatha Community the burden is on them to establish the same." The dictum clearly shows that the door was still left open to the aggrieved parties, if any, to substantiate their case on the basis of relevant materials. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no dispute whatsoever with regard to the dictum contained in 2007(1) KLT 730 and that there is no claim for the petitioner that he should be treated as a member of a scheduled caste under any possibly describable head. The relief sought for is only with regard to the issuance of a certificate showing the status of the petitioner as OX (Other Christian). The relief sought for is only with regard to the issuance of a certificate showing the status of the petitioner as OX (Other Christian). The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on Exhibits P10 and P11 circulars issued by the PSC dealing with the eligibility of the persons concerned to obtain the necessary certificates as discussed below. 10. It is stated in Exhibit P10 circular dated 11-4-2001 that the PSC has considered the various aspects as referred to therein and it was ordered as follows:- "(a) Scheduled Caste converted to LC shall be given the benefit of L.C. (b) Scheduled Caste converted to SIUC shall be given the benefit of SIUC. (c) Scheduled Caste converted to any other denomination of Christianity will be given the benefit of community as OX. It is also clarified that in such cases the benefit of community proved shall not be denied to them for the reason that claims originally made in the application is as OX Parava converted LC etc. Gazette notification regarding change of community need not be insisted in such cases." The above Circular No.2/2001 was later modified by the PSC as per Circular No.9/2001 dated 19-12-2001. It has been stated in the said Circular in unequivocal terms that "it was ordered that the Scheduled Caste candidate converted to Christianity and who attaches himself/herself to the Latin Catholic denomination of the Christian religion, when claims the benefit of Other Christian community in his/her application supported by proper proof of the same, he/she shall have the right to enjoy the benefit of Other Christian community." 11. This being the position, the assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by the first and fourth respondents that no certificate as claimed for can be issued to the petitioner since the petitioner and his family are worshipers of Latin Catholic church is rather self-contradictory, particularly when issuance of the above circulars or their applicability has not been rebutted at all. Undisputed pleadings are liable to be treated as admissions and do not require to be proved any further. 12. The learned counsel for the first respondent brought to the notice of this Court, Judgment dated 27-8- 2008 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.609 of 2008, to contend that the petitioner in the instant case is not eligible to get the benefit. 12. The learned counsel for the first respondent brought to the notice of this Court, Judgment dated 27-8- 2008 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.609 of 2008, to contend that the petitioner in the instant case is not eligible to get the benefit. Of course, the above judgment has been passed, placing reliance on the Division Bench decision in 2007(1) KLT 730. In Writ Appeal No.609 of 2008, the concerned petitioner, at the time of shortlisting, was given non-creamy layer certificate treating her as Latin Catholic and the above Caste certificate was observed as not disputed. That apart, existence of an inter parte judgment (Exhibit P4) as involved in the present case is consequently absent in the above case. As such, the above decision cannot be of any help to the respondents. 13. Another important aspect to be noted between the case which was considered by the Division Bench in 2007(1) KLT 730 and the present case, is with regard to the substantial difference as to the relative rights and liabilities as discussed and conferred by Exhibit P4 judgment. In the case of the petitioner in this writ petition, this Court, while passing Exhibit P4 Judgment directing to issue the certificate, had clearly reserved the right of the concerned respondents to test the veracity and credibility of the certificate observing it as follows:- "In case, the certificate is found to be improper or received by suppressing any material facts in any subsequent enquiry, the benefits that might have ensured to the petitioner on the strength of the certificate will be liable to be reviewed and cancelled." Obviously, no such right was reserved in favour of the respondents in Exhibit P8 judgment where the declaration was made once and for all. 14. In the instant case, absolutely no material has been produced by the respondents to show that they had made use of the right reserved in Exhibit P4 Judgment to conduct any enquiry and to substantiate that the petitioner had suppressed material facts in obtaining Exhibit P3 certificate necessitating it to be reviewed/cancelled as observed in Exhibit P4 Judgment. 14. In the instant case, absolutely no material has been produced by the respondents to show that they had made use of the right reserved in Exhibit P4 Judgment to conduct any enquiry and to substantiate that the petitioner had suppressed material facts in obtaining Exhibit P3 certificate necessitating it to be reviewed/cancelled as observed in Exhibit P4 Judgment. It is submitted by both the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC that they did not conduct any further enquiry as it was felt not necessary, in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in 2007(1) KLT 730. It is to be noted that Exhibit P4 judgment reserving the right to conduct further enquiry was passed as early as on 28-11-2000; whereas the judgment reported in 2007(1) KLT 730 was passed only on 18-12-2006. It cannot be presumed that the respondents were having some astrological assumption as to the circumstances leading to the verdict to be passed by the Division Bench on 18-12-2006 and as such, the reason stated for not conducting the enquiry, making use of the right reserved in Exhibit P4 Judgment is rather puerile. 15. As noted above, in the instant case, there is an inter parte judgment vide Exhibit P4, leading to issuance of Exhibit P3 certificate reserving the right of the respondents to conduct enquiry, if they actually doubted the caste status of the petitioner. The respondents could have very well pursued the matter to controvert the version of the petitioner, producing the materials/enquiry reports etc. before this Court, as done by the respondents in the case dealt with by the Division Bench in 2007 (1) KLT 730. It seems that the respondents were simply sleeping over the issue and the failure/lapses on their side, cannot be attributed or shifted to the petitioner so as to adversely affect his right and interests flowing from the directions given by this Court vide Exhibit P4 Judgment rendered in the year 2000. It seems that the respondents were simply sleeping over the issue and the failure/lapses on their side, cannot be attributed or shifted to the petitioner so as to adversely affect his right and interests flowing from the directions given by this Court vide Exhibit P4 Judgment rendered in the year 2000. The effect of the rights and liabilities flowing from inter parte judgments, even in circumstances when rendered contrary to the provisions of law has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court as per the decision in 2002(1) KLT 840 (by his Lordship K.S.Radhakrishnan, J. who was a party to the Bench in 2007 (1) KLT 730, sitting along with his Lordship K.Balakrishnan Nair, J.) Admittedly, Exhibit P4 judgment has not been challenged by the respondents so far. As the matter stands so, there is absolutely no merit in the contentions putforth by the respondents to deny the rights available to the petitioner on the strength of Exhibit P4 judgment and Exhibit P3 certificate issued in furtherance thereof. 16. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that filling up of the concerned vacancy has been kept in abeyance because of the pendency of the above writ petition and nobody else has been advised in response to the vacancy reported before the expiry of the Rank list. This being the position, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the name of the petitioner for advice subject to his turn, and the steps shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from today. It is also hereby made clear that the direction given herein will not preclude the rights and interest of the respondents from conducting any further enquiry, if they find it fit and proper, making use of the right reserved in Exhibit P4 judgment, particularly since there shall not be any situation, to close the door of truth forever. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.