JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. Since a common issue is involved in all these writ petitions, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment. W.P.(C)No.27698 of 2022 2. Petitioner in this writ petition is presently working as a Medical Officer. Pursuant to a notification issued by the 8th respondent-Public Service Commission, the petitioner has applied to the post of Assistant Surgeon in Health Department under NCA - Hindu Nadar Community. The petitioner's parents belong to Hindu-Nadar community and petitioner is born and bought up in the said community. S.S.L.C. Book of petitioner's father and mother and the community certificate issued to the petitioner are produced as Exts.P1, P2 and P3 respectively. Petitioner participated in the test and interview and later, appointed at the District Hospital, Kanhangad as per Ext.P5, on 18.01.2017. There was a subsequent notification issued for appointment of Assistant Surgeon for Hindu Community and certain candidates applied for the said post including respondents 9 to 12. Since respondents 9 to 12 could not get selected, they filed Ext.P6 complaint before the 1st respondent stating that some of the candidates submitted false community certificates and got appointment in the quota earmarked for Hindu Nadar Community. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in Ext.P7, the complaint was considered and by Ext.P8 order, the caste and Non- creamy layer certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled. It is seen that the 8 th respondent has also issued Ext.P10 communication denying the benefits of reservation , if a candidate converts from a caste to another and making them ineligible for reservation under both the castes. It is aggrieved by Exts.P8 and P10, the petitioner has approached this Court. W.P.(C)No. 28545 of 2022 3. In this writ petition also the petitioner presently working as Assistant Surgeon in Government Service, who got selected in NCA – Hindu Nadar category and she was appointed as per Ext.P2 order on 01.08.2019. Ext.P3 is her School Leaving Certificate and Ext.P4 is the Non-Creamy Layer certificate issued to the petitioner, whereas Ext.P5 is the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner's father, which would show that the petitioner belongs to the Hindu Nadar community. Ext.P3 is her School Leaving Certificate and Ext.P4 is the Non-Creamy Layer certificate issued to the petitioner, whereas Ext.P5 is the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner's father, which would show that the petitioner belongs to the Hindu Nadar community. An enquiry was conducted and Exts.P6 and P7 reports were filed by the District Collector, and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P9, the matter was considered and the caste certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled as per Ext.P10. The petitioner submits that she has always professed Hindu religion from her birth and she never converted to Christianity and the community certificates issued to the petitioner from time to time are produced as Exts.P11 to P14. The petitioner also produced Ext.P15 communication issued by the Temple Committee of Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, Thachottukavu dated 20.10.2021 to prove that the petitioner is still living as a Hindu-Nadar. W.P.(C)No.28873 of 2022 4. Petitioner in this writ petition is also working as Assistant Surgeon, claiming the benefit of NCA – Hindu Nadar community and she was appointed as per Ext.P2 on 08.07.2019. Ext.P3 is the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner and Ext.P4 is the Non- Creamy Layer Certificate issued to the petitioner, whereas Ext.P5 is the Extract of admission Register of the petitioner's father, which all would reveal that the petitioner belongs to Hindu-Nadar community. Certain candidates, who were lower in rank, filed a complaint stating that the petitioner has falsely claimed the benefit of Hindu Nadar, whereas she is a person belonging to Christian Nadar community. Ext.P7 report was submitted by the District Collector and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, the issue was considered by the 6 th respondent and the Caste certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled as per Ext.P10. 5. In all these cases, the challenge is against a common order dated 12.08.2022. A perusal of Ext.P8 (produced in W.P. (C)Nos.28873 & 28545 of 2022) passed by the Government in respect of all the petitioners, would reveal that they were Hindu Nadars and thereafter married to persons belonging to Christian community and thereby lost the benefit of Hindu Nadar community and holding so, the Caste certificates showing that the petitioners are belonging to Hindu Nadar community were cancelled. A reading of Ext.P8 order issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner would reveal that the benefit of reservation under the Hindu Nadar community was declined to the petitioners not because that they originally did not belong to Hindu Nadar community, but by marrying a person belongs to Christian community, they lost the benefit of reservation extended to the Hindu Nadar community. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 9 to 12 in W.P.(C)No.27698 of 2022, wherein it is admitted that the petitioner was born and bought up in Hindu Nadar community till her marriage, but contended that the petitioner married a person belonging to Christian community at a church, as evident from Ext.R9A. It is the contention of the respondents that a Christian can marry only a Christian as per the Indian Christian Marriage Act and for a valid marriage in a church, both the parties should receive episcopal ordination. In view of the same, only when the petitioner is converted to Christianity that the marriage could happen in a church and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of reservation extended to the Hindu Nadar community, where she has in fact married to a Christian, at a church. 7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.27698 of 2022, wherein also similar contentions were raised stating that the petitioner has married a member of the Christian Nadar community in a church as per the Christian rites and without being baptized as a Christian, one cannot marry a Christian man as per the Christian rituals and rites. Accordingly, the petitioner is no longer a member of the Hindu Nadar community and therefore, not entitled for the benefit of reservation extended to Hindu Nadar community. It is also stated that as per G.O.(Ms) No.104/2009/SCSTDD, the Government has sanctioned reservation for Hindu Nadar community and SIUC Nadars, separately and as per G.O.(Ms)No.1/2022/BCDD dated 25.02.2022, Government have sanctioned reservation for Christians in Nadar community other than SIUC Nadar. Since the marriage with a Hindu person cannot be done in a church without conversion, naturally the petitioner has converted to Christian and it makes her ineligible for reservation extended to Hindu Nadar community. 8. Since the marriage with a Hindu person cannot be done in a church without conversion, naturally the petitioner has converted to Christian and it makes her ineligible for reservation extended to Hindu Nadar community. 8. In answer to the averments in W.P.(C)No.28545 of 2022, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 7 to 10, wherein similar contentions were raised relying on Ext.R7(a) certificate of marriage issued to the petitioner therein. The 2nd respondent also filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein the contention taken in the earlier writ petition was reiterated. It is further stated that since marriage of the petitioner was not under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and it has been solemnised at church as per Christian rituals, the petitioner lost the benefit extended to the Hindu Nadar community. It is further contended that the decisions relied on by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. In W.P.(C)No.28873 of 2022 also, respondents 7 to 10 have filed a detailed counter affidavit taking a very same stand in the other two writ petitions. Likewise, the Government has also field a counter affidavit reiterating their stand in the earlier writ petitions. 10. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 11. Admittedly, all the petitioners belong to Hindu Nadar community and the said aspect is not disputed by any of the respondents in the writ petition. The only contention raised is that by marriage to a Christian, they have lost the benefit of reservation extended to the Hindu Nadar community and after the marriage the claim made by the petitioners contending that they belong to Hindu Nadar community is absolutely illegal and taking note of the said fact that impugned order was issued by the Government cancelling the caste certificate/ Non-Creamy Layer certificate of the petitioners. The specific contention of the respondents is that since the marriage was solemnised in a church, the same could not happen without a valid conversion, and therefore, the petitioners have lost the benefit of reservation extended to Hindu Nadar community and the appointment made based on the said claim is liable to be set aside. 12. The specific contention of the respondents is that since the marriage was solemnised in a church, the same could not happen without a valid conversion, and therefore, the petitioners have lost the benefit of reservation extended to Hindu Nadar community and the appointment made based on the said claim is liable to be set aside. 12. The petitioner relies on the judgment in W.P.(C)No.21328 of 2021, wherein the petitioner therein, who belongs to Christian Latin Catholic community married a Zeromalabar Syrian Catholic christian and therefore, the stand taken by the Government is that she is not entitle to claim the Latin Catholic status. This Court relying on the judgment in Kerala Pattikajathi Samrakshana Samithi and Another v. State of Kerala and others [1995 KHC 537] and also the judgment in Sunita Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ AIR (2018) SC 566 ] has held in the said case that the stand taken by the Government that the Latin Catholic status will be lost by the petitioner is without any basis and directed the competent authority to issue the Caste certificate to the petitioner therein showing that the petitioner belongs to Christian Latin Catholic. In W.P.(C)No.1037 of 2016 and connected cases, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court considered the question as to whether a person belonging to the Hindu Pallan community would lose her status as Hindu Pallan community for the reason that the petitioner therein had married a Christian. The Division Bench of Madras High Court held that only for the reason that the person goes to church does not mean that such person has altogether abandoned the original faith to which such person was born and also held that the acts and conduct of the respondents portray a degree of narrow-mindness that the constitution does not encourage and nothing may be presumed upon a member of a particular community respecting another community or another religion and, indeed, that is the constitutional mandate and not otherwise. Since the action taken by the respondent authorities appears to be arbitrary and based on surmises and conjectures without any material fact in support thereof, the same was set aside by the Madras High Court and restored the original certificate issued to the petitioner therein. 13. Since the action taken by the respondent authorities appears to be arbitrary and based on surmises and conjectures without any material fact in support thereof, the same was set aside by the Madras High Court and restored the original certificate issued to the petitioner therein. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Kerala Pattikajathi Samrakshana Samithi 's case cited Supra, wherein the Court has held that there is no scope for a change in the status of the cast and the adoption, marriage and conversion of faith of individual from one caste to another as permitted by the Law of Adoption or marriage have no relevance for the purpose of claiming the benefit of reservation under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. In Jyothsna A. v. Kerala Public Service Commission , TVM and others [ 2022 (1) KHC 401 ] this Court considered a case where a person belonging to Hindu Kuravan community married a person belonging to Christian community and thereupon the Tahsildar refused to issue certificate on the said ground. In the said case, the petitioner asserted that she is a Hindu by birth and conscience and has not embraced Christianity. The Court considering the rival contentions held that since the petitioner was born as a Hindu Kuravan, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in rejecting the application on the ground that she had married a person belonging to the Christian community. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunita Singh' s case cited (Supra) wherein it is held that the caste or community of a person is to be decided on the basis of her birth in the said community, and finding so, directed to issue a community certificate as prayed for by the petitioner therein. The Apex Court in Sunita Singh' s case cited (Supra) while considering a case where the appellant was born in 'Agarwal' family married to a person belonging to 'Jatav' community, which is one of the Scheduled Castes, and claimed the benefit of entitlement to Scheduled Caste community, has held that the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste. 14. 14. It is to be noted that the specific assertion made by the petitioners in all these cases is that even though they have married to persons belonging to Christian community, they are still professing Hindu religion. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28545 of 2022 relies on Ext.P6 report submitted by the District Collector to the Land Revenue Commissioner, wherein it is admitted that the petitioner originally belongs to Hindu Nadar community and her parents also belong to the same community and she has married a Christian Nadar. But it is reported that she has not officially changed her religion/caste. A further report (Ext.P7) was filed by the District Collector to the Land Revenue Commissioner, wherein based on a letter issued by the Sree Swami Ayyappan Temple Devaswom Trust, it is stated that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28545 of 2022 and her family are professing Hindu religion. In Ext.P7 it is reported that the persons of the neighbourhood could not give any evidence, but it is further reported that in the local enquiry the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28545 of 2022 was found to be professing Christian religion. When it is reported that the persons in the locality refused to give any evidence in this regard, how there could be a finding in Ext.P7 that in the local enquiry they found that the petitioner is professing Christian religion, is not explained by the official respondents. But in Ext.P7 report it is clearly stated that, as per the letter given by the temple authorities, the family is living following the Hindu religious rites. Whereas in W.P. (C)No.27698 of 2022, the specific assertion made by the petitioner is that though she has married a Christian, she is a Hindu Nadar by birth and born and bought up in the said community and her caste has not changed because of her marriage to a Christian Nadar. 15. The Non-Creamy Layer certificate/Caste certificate issued to the petitioners have been rejected by the Government solely for the reason that the petitioners have married a person belonging to Christian Nadar community. No proper enquiry including a proper local enquiry has been conducted to find out whether the petitioners are still following the Hindu rites etc. 15. The Non-Creamy Layer certificate/Caste certificate issued to the petitioners have been rejected by the Government solely for the reason that the petitioners have married a person belonging to Christian Nadar community. No proper enquiry including a proper local enquiry has been conducted to find out whether the petitioners are still following the Hindu rites etc. Without recording any statement by any of the persons, it is quite strange that a finding has been entered into in Ext.P7 to the effect that in the local enquiry it is found that the petitioner is professing Christian religion and the Court is not able to accept the said finding. Further, as regards the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28545 of 2022 the temple authorities have also given a communication to the effect that the petitioner and her family are following the Hindu religion. None of these contentions including the findings and the observations made in the judgments cited Supra was not considered by the authorities while issuing the impugned order. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is ordered as follows: 1. Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)Nos.28873 & 28545 of 2022 and Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.27698 of 2022 are quashed, directing the 1 st respondent Government to reconsider the matter again, after conducting a proper enquiry in the matter and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the party respondents. 2. The petitioners will be free to submit their notes of argument producing relevant documents and judgments in support of their contentions, which shall be duly taken into consideration by the 1 st respondent while taking a decision as directed above. 3. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 1 st respondent, without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.