JUDGMENT : Antony Dominic, J. This appeal is filed by respondents 3, 6 and 7 in W.P. (C) No. 19867, challenging the judgment dated 07.11.2013 rendered by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, quashing Exts.P14 and P16 reports submitted by the 3rd appellant. The learned Single Judge has also declared the respondent to be eligible to the status of a Scheduled Caste candidate, entitled to reservation as certified in Ext.P3 community certificate. Appropriate orders were also passed enabling the continued study of the respondent in Bachelor of Physiotherapy course, treating her as a Scheduled Caste candidate. 2. We heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent applied for admission to the course of Bachelor or Physiotherapy. She claimed to be a Scheduled Caste candidate, which claim was sought to be substantiated by relying on Ext.P3 community certificate issued by the competent authority under the Act of 11 of 1996. In terms of the provisions contained in Act 11 of 1996, her application was referred for enquiry by the 3rd appellant, which resulted in Ext.P14 report. In that report, the respondent's claim as a Scheduled Caste candidate was negatived by the 3rd appellant. Relying on the said report, the admission process of the respondent was withheld. It was at that stage, the writ petition was filed. 4. Having regard to the complaint of the respondent that Ext.P14 report was submitted without giving her notice or opportunity, an interim order was passed by this Court, directing that a fresh report be prepared with notice and opportunity to the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent was given an opportunity and after hearing her, Ext.P16 report was submitted by the 3rd appellant, wherein, again, the claim of the respondent that she is a Scheduled Caste candidate was negatived. Accordingly, the writ petition was amended incorporating challenge against Ext.P16 report also. It was this writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who, by the impugned judgment, declared the respondent to be a member of the Scheduled Caste Community of Pulaya. 5. Learned Government Pleader contended that though the grandfather of the respondent was a Pulaya, he was married to a lady from Thiyya Community. It was this writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who, by the impugned judgment, declared the respondent to be a member of the Scheduled Caste Community of Pulaya. 5. Learned Government Pleader contended that though the grandfather of the respondent was a Pulaya, he was married to a lady from Thiyya Community. It was also pointed out that the respondent's father, as already stated, was an offspring of an inter-caste marriage, and that her mother, a Thiyya, was born in an inter-caste wedlock between a Nambiar and Thiyya lady. It is stated that such a child cannot be considered as one born in the Scheduled Caste Community of Pulaya only on the basis that her grandfather belonged to Pulaya Community. Learned Government Pleader also stated that there was nothing to show that despite the inter-caste marriage of her grandfather and father, the appellant is still following the customs and practices of Pulaya Community, that she was brought up in accordance there with and that she was accepted by that Community into its fold. On the basis of the above, learned Government Pleader contended that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge interfering with Exts.P14 and P16 reports is totally untenable. 6. Having considered the submissions, we find that the binding precedents laid down by the Apex Court and this Court would show that in the case of an inter-caste marriage, ordinarily the offspring would take the caste status of the father. Further, such a presumption is a rebuttable one and that if such a child has not suffered the social disabilities of the Community of the father or that offspring was not brought up in accordance with the customs thereof and that if the offspring has not been adopted by the Community of the father, the caste status of the offspring would not be that of his father. Bearing this principle in mind, if the facts of the case are appreciated, it can be seen that in Ext.P16 report submitted by the 3rd appellant itself, it is conceded that the father of the respondent, Shri Manoharan @ Manoj, is a member of the Pulaya Community. Therefore, the initial presumption is that the respondent also belongs to the Community of her father, i.e., Pulaya. Therefore, the initial presumption is that the respondent also belongs to the Community of her father, i.e., Pulaya. There is no material whatsoever before us nor anything is disclosed in Exts.P14 and P16 reports to indicate that by the upbringing, the respondent was ceased to be a member of the Pulaya Community or that she has gone out of that Community. On the other hand, Ext.P3 certificate, issued by the competent authority under Act 11 of 1996, certifies her to be a member of the Pulaya Community. Ext.P12 certificate issued by an Organization of the Pulaya Community also certifies that she is a member of that Community. In such a factual situation, in the absence of any material to arrive at a conclusion that the respondent is not a member of the Pulaya Community, we cannot disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge interfering with Exts.P14 and P16. For these reasons, we do not find any illegality in the judgment under appeal. Writ appeal fails. It is dismissed.