Dismissed

Sri Ullas Anant Baadkar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021WP/33827/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner's 'Halleer' Scheduled Caste certificate was cancelled by the District Caste Verification Committee and the Tahsildar, and the appellate authority confirmed it. The court held that notice was given and the petitioner participated in the enquiry, that the Committee was competent to verify a certificate issued before the 1990 Act, and that no material proved 'Halleer' caste. Petition d

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Ullas Anant Baadkar Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.33827 OF 2016 (GM-CC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ULLAS ANANT BAADKAR S/O.LATE ANANT V.BAADKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS EARLIER WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT SUB TREASURY OFFICE SOUDHATHI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT NO.31/1, 2^ND ‘C’ CROSS VASANTHAPPA BLOCK GANGANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 032 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.VITTAL SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶12

¶13

THE UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR – 581 301

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR HALIYAL OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR HALIAYAL (U.K.) – 581 329 ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI P.B.ACHAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R4)

¶16

SRI C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 OF UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES DISTRICT CASTE VERFICATION COMMITTEE PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 24.01.2015 DIRECTING THE TAHSILDAR HALIYAL TO CANCEL THE CASTE CERTIFICATE AS BELONGING TO ‘HALLEER’ CASTE OF THE SCHEDULE CASTE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE – M); ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR HALIYAL, CANCELLING CASTE CERTIFICATE NO.1054/1985-86 DATED 27.12.1985 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-N) AND ORDER DATED 05.05.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL WELFARE DAPERTMENT REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-R) AS THESE ORDERS PASSED IN UTTER VIOLATION OF RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, ARBITRARY, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SC/ST & OTHER BC (RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENTS ETC.) ACT, 1980 AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.02.2021 AND COMING ON FOR

¶20

¶21

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Order No.G Sa Kaa: Tasa: NahaJani:CR17:2001-02 dated 23.01.2015, of the Uttarkannada Dist. Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes District Caste Verification Committee passed in the meeting held on 23.01.2015 vide Annexure - M, and order dated 31-03-2015, passed by the Tahshildar Haliyal, cancelling the Caste certificate No. 1054/1985-86 dated 27-12-1985, issued to the Petitioner vide Annexure – N and order dated 05-052016, passed by the Commissioner, Social welfare Department, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner vide Annexure – R. Petitioner has also sought for costs of the proceedings to be paid by the Respondents.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶25

(i) Petitioner joined as a Second Division Clerk (for

¶26

short ‘SDC’) in Sub-Treasury in the Treasury

¶27

¶28

Department at Haliyal on 05.12.1979. While securing the said employment, petitioner relied on the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Karwar in the year 1976, which certifies that petitioner belongs to ‘Halleer’ Caste. On the basis of the said caste certificate, petitioner was given regular appointment in the cadre of SDC by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short, ‘KPSC’), the Director of Treasuries by order dated 21.02.1986 under SC category posted to Sub-Treasury, Haliyal.

¶29

(ii) Petitioner while joining as regular candidate furnished his original caste certificate on 27.12,1985 in Form No.7 issued by the Tahsildar, Haliyal Taluk, mentioning his caste as ‘Hindu – ‘Halleer’’ (Vazantri).

¶30

(iii) Thereafter, petitioner was promoted as First Division Clerk on 27.02.1996. During this time, one Mr. R.S.Bant, who was also working in the same cadre as that of the petitioner,

¶31

¶32

was also promoted and he made a complaint against the petitioner alleging that petitioner got promoted based on production of a false caste certificate.

¶33

(iv) Based on the complaint, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell (for short ‘CRE Cell’) referred the matter to the District Caste Verification Committee (for short ‘DCVC’), Karwar - respondent No.3 herein, which is constituted under the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 (for short ‘the Act’), to enquire as to whether petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste or not.

¶34

(v) According to the petitioner, his ancestors belong to ‘‘Halleer’’ caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Order 9 (Amendment) Act, 1976 has also included ‘Halleer’ caste. The ‘Halleer’ caste people are mainly from Uttar Kannada District

¶35

¶36

and according to the petitioner, they carry on profession of pipers and drum beaters during auspicious occasions. Since parents of the petitioner and his ancestors belonged to ‘Halleer’ caste, they are also called as vazantri caste because of their profession, though they belong to ‘Halleer’ caste. The caste of the petitioner was mentioned in the School records as ‘Halleer’ (vazantri) taking into consideration the profession practiced by the father of the petitioner and his ancestors.

¶37

(vi) On reference made, respondent No.3 without

¶38

securing the presence of petitioner, without conducting any enquiry and having no jurisdiction, passed an order on 31.12.2002 directing the respondent No.4 – Tahsildar to investigate the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner. Consequently, respondent No.4 by its order dated 05.04.2003 cancelled the caste certificate dated 27^th December 1985.

¶39

¶40

(vii) Aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent

¶41

Nos.3 and 4, petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.3951/2006 and by the order dated 16^th March 2006, the said writ petition was allowed and this Court quashed the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶42

(viii) Thereafter, respondent No.4 passed a fresh order on 12^th September 2008 reviving his earlier order canceling the caste certificate of petitioner, even though the same is quashed by this Court. Based on the said illegal order, petitioner was relieved from his services by the Director of Treasuries on 23.01.2009.

¶43

(ix) Thereafter, petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.67044/2011 challenging the order passed by respondent No.4 reviving his earlier order canceling the caste certificate issued and the order of his dismissal from the service.

¶44

This Court by an order dated 31^st January 2012 allowed W.P.No.67044/2011 and

¶45

¶46

quashed the order of cancellation of caste certificate and consequently, the order discharging petitioner from service.

¶47

(x) Petitioner also filed a Criminal Petition in Crl.P.No.11654/2011 before this Court praying to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Spl.Case No.6/2009 pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Karwar and also to quash the charge sheet in Cr.No.137/2008 dated 18^th September 2008. This Court vide order dated 16.08.2012 quashed the impugned proceedings of the criminal case.

¶48

(xi) Based on the orders of this Court, petitioner made a representation dated 10.02.2012 to the Director of Treasuries, Bengaluru to reinstate him to the service. The Director of Treasuries referred the matter to the Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Bengaluru through letter dated 22.02.2012.

¶49

¶50

(xii) Further, the petitioner also filed an Application No.6396/2012 for his reinstatement into service. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (in short ’the Tribunal’) vide its order dated 16.04.2014 has allowed the application of petitioner and directed the Director of Treasuries to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of one month. Thereafter, petitioner was reinstated and posted to work at Sub-Treasuries Office at Soundatti.

¶51

(xiii) While the petitioner was employed and working at Soundatti, District Social Welfare Officer, Uttara Kannada, Karwar vide letter dated 16.05.2014 called the petitioner to reply to the report of the Additional Directorate General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru. Petitioner replied to the said letter. In the said reply, he contended that a complaint made against him is out of jealousy and vengeance and that any

¶52

¶53

documents collected behind his back cannot be the subject matter of evidence without him being given a personal hearing and opportunity to reply to the same.

¶54

(xiv) Thereafter, petitioner came to know that his caste certificate has been cancelled and respondent No.3 had directed respondent No.4 to cancel the caste certificate on 24.01.2015. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.4 passed an order on 31.03.2015 canceling the caste certificate of the petitioner. In view of the orders of the respondent No.3 and 4, petitioner was terminated from service and was relieved on 06.05.2015.

¶55

(xv) Aggrieved by the said order of cancellation of the caste certificate, petitioner filed an Appeal No.CR 03/2015-16 before the Commissioner, Social Welfare Department under Section 4-D of the Act. The Appellate Authority passed an order on 05.05.2016 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶56

¶57

Being aggrieved by the orders of DCVC, Tahsildar and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the same.

¶58

Heard Sri S.Vittal Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.Jagadish, learned counsel for respondents, who is present through Video Conference.

¶59

It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the order passed by respondent No.2 is arbitrary, illegal and against principles of natural justice. He further contends that he has produced the caste certificate issued by the Administrator, Town Municipal Council, Karwar dated 26.04.1978 stating that the petitioner’s father Anant V.’Halleer’ used to supply materials out of the Budget reserved for SC and ST for the year 1977-78. He has further contended that a copy of caste certificate dated 12.01.1977 issued by the Tahsildar, Karwar to one Uday, S/o Guna Vajantri mentioning that he

¶60

¶61

belongs to ‘Halleer’ Caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel has produced certificate dated 10.08.1984 issued by Union High School to one Ramesh, who is petitioner’s cousin sister’s husband and he also belongs to Hindu (Vajanthrihalli). Petitioner has also produced letter dated 28.06.1999 issued by the Deputy Speaker, Karwar Assembly, namely, Mr. P.Kadam, who has stated that petitioner belongs to ‘Halleer’ Caste involved in the profession of drum beating that is vazantri.

¶62

Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that the order passed by the Commissioner, DCVC, is unsustainable in law and voilative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He further contends that no enquiry has been conducted by the DCVC while passing the order of cancellation of the caste certificate. In fact, the basis for cancellation of the caste certificate by the DCVC is on the report of Additional Director General of Police, wherein it is held

¶63

¶64

that petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste which is recognized as Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel further contends that though the petitioner had replied to the letter of Additional Director General of Police and also sought for personal hearing before the DCVC, no inquiry or any hearing was scheduled by the DCVC. Hence, there is violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity is provided to the petitioner to effectively put forth his claim before the Authority. Learned counsel further contends that DCVC has not even communicated the order passed canceling his caste certificate and therefore, the order passed by the DCVC and consequent order of Tribunal is bad in law and is unsustainable.

¶65

Learned counsel further contends that as per

¶66

the Rule 7(1) of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, ETC) Rules, 1992, the DCVC shall hold enquiry after giving an opportunity to the parties concerned and further sub-Rule (4) of

¶67

¶68

Rule 7 of the Rules states that the Committee shall dispose of the case on merits after holding enquiry as it deems fit after giving applicant an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, both these provisions are clear that if any enquiry is conducted, an opportunity has to be given by the DCVC to the concerned parties before coming to any conclusion.

¶69

In the present case, no such opportunity has been provided by the authority and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further contends that if an opportunity was given to him, he would have cross examined the complaint and would have produced the documents in his favour to prove that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste. Therefore, non providing of an opportunity as contemplated under sub-Rules (1) and (4) of Rule 7 of Rules is in violation of the statutory right of the petitioner and principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further contends that Section 4 (C)(2) of the Act makes it clear that any person who has obtained

¶70

¶71

the caste certificate under Section 4-A or the Appointing Authority may make application to the DCVC either to grant the validity certificate or to reject the application. Therefore, DCVC has no jurisdiction under the Act to pass an order directing the Tahsildar to cancel the caste certificate of the petitioner.

¶72

Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that if any application is made to the DCVC by the Appointing Authority or any party making admission to course of study in the University that the DCVC would get jurisdiction to deal with the matter to enquire with the validity of the caste, Respondent No.3 has no power to direct respondent No.4 to cancel the caste certificate without holding any enquiry or providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Therefore, the orders of the DCVC directing respondent No.4 to cancel the caste certificate is beyond jurisdiction and hence, the same is unsustainable in law.

¶73

¶74

Learned counsel further contends that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Appellate Authority. He further contends that even if it is assumed that respondent No.3 has power under the Act to enquire into the validity of the caste certificate and the powers to recommend for cancellation of the caste certificate, the same cannot be exercised as against the petitioner and for the reason that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner was prior to the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 coming into force. Hence, the order passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 are illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel further contends that presently petitioner has been terminated from his service and relieved and the DCVC has initiated action of cancellation during fag end of his service based on the complaint filed with jealously with an intention to victimise the petitioner.

¶75

¶76

Learned counsel further contends that that order passed by the Appellate Authority is without consideration of these material aspects and none of these documents are considered by either respondent No.3 or Appellate Authority. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner was not provided sufficient opportunity to participate in the enquiry conducted by respondent No.3 and in view of non providing of an opportunity which is a basic fundamental requirement, the principles of natural justice has been violated and this aspect has been ignored by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for petitioner seeks to allow this petition and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority as per Annexure-R.

¶77

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decisions in support of his case:

¶78

RAMPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2009)9 SCC 187;

¶79

¶80

AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2013)4 SCC 465;

¶81

SHALINI v. NEW ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL ASSN. reported in (2013)16 SCC 526;

¶82

DATTU NAMDEV THAKUR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in AIR 2012 SC 360;

¶83

SMT.HEMAVATHY vs. THE DIRECTOR & APPELLATE AUTHORITY, S.T.WELFARE & ORS. reported in ILR 2016 KAR 3880;

¶84

K.G.SRIKANTH vs THE HASILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK & ANR. reported in ILR 2009 KAR 911;

¶85

DAYARAM v. SUDHIR BATHAM reported in (2012)1 SCC 333;

¶86

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contends that petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste category and he has produced false documents to show that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste whereas the petitioner himself has produced documents to show that he belongs to vazantri community and he has claimed that his father had also obtained certain benefits from the Government

¶87

¶88

by showing that he belongs to vazantri community.

¶89

The petitioner has also produced certificate of his blood relatives to show that they belong to vazantri community and therefore, petitioner cannot claim ‘Halleer’ caste which is notified as Scheduled Caste. He further contends that vazantri caste as claimed by the petitioner in his petition and in the caste certificate produced by him comes within the category of Backward Classes as prescribed by the notification of the Government vide Order No.SWD 225 BCA 2000 dated 30.03.2002 in Annexure-1, Category-II (A) under Sl.No.8(v). Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to belong to both Scheduled Caste category as well as the Backward Classes category. Learned counsel further contends that as per the presidential notification and the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, ‘Halleer’ caste is described in Sl.No.39 of Part –VII of the Schedule and it is for the petitioner to produce necessary documents to show that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste notified as Scheduled Caste under 1950 Order. The petitioner has not produced

¶90

¶91

any piece of documents before the DCVC or the Tahsildar to show that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste whereas he has produced document to show that he belongs to vazantri community and in view of non production of any documents by the petitioner about ‘Halleer’ caste, the DCVC and Tahsildar have rightly cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. In the caste certificate produced by petitioner as per Annexure-A dated 27.12.1985, it reads that the petitioner belongs to ‘Halleer’ (vazantri) which is recognized as Scheduled Caste.

¶92

Learned counsel contends that on a careful examination of the said document, it is apparent on the face of record that petitioner claims to belong to ‘Halleer’ caste/vazantri alleged to be notified by the presidential order of 1950. It is alleged that caste certificate is issued by the Tahsildar, Haliyal on 27.12.1985. He further contends that the documents produced by petitioner from I standard to VII standard in all the School records of

¶93

¶94

Government Model Higher Primary School, Bada,

¶95

Karwar, the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as vazantri. He further contends that on the basis of this, the petitioner has fraudulently managed to secure the caste certificate showing that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste and on the basis of this fraudulent caste certificate, the petitioner has secured an appointment in the Department of Treasury as SDC.

¶96

Learned counsel further contends that it is interesting to note that petitioner has not produced any single piece of document of his School records which would show that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste or vazantri caste and documents produced by the petitioner cannot go along with ‘Halleer’ caste as both are not synonymous and they are different. He further contends that ‘Halleer’ caste comes under the notification of Scheduled Caste whereas vazantri comes under the notification of Backward Class. Learned counsel further contends that as per Section 4-A of the Act , whenever a person claims the benefit

¶97

¶98

of reservation for appointment to any service or post

¶99

or for admission to a course of study then he is entitled to seek for issuance of a caste certificate by making an application before the Tahsildar. Section 4-A clause (5) of the Act contemplates the burden of proving the fact that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste is on him and he will have to produce necessary material before the Tahsildar to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category specified in the presidential order of 1950.

¶100

Learned counsel further contends that notice was given to the petitioner on 14.07.2014 as per Annexure-L2 for which the petitioner has given a reply as per Annexure-L5. After going through entire materials produced by the petitioner and reply given by the petitioner, DCVC has passed an order vide Annexure-M dated 23.01.2015. Therefore, he contends that petitioner cannot now claim that no notice was given to him and no opportunity was given to him to place material before the concerned

¶101

¶102

authorities. Learned counsel further contends that after participating in the enquiry by placing materials and reply, petitioner cannot now contend that no opportunity was given to him by DCVC and thereby, principles of natural justice is violated.

¶103

Learned counsel further contends that after taking into consideration all the relevant documents placed by the petitioner, DCVC has come to a conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Halleer’ caste and has suppressed his true caste which is vazantri and by making false representation and suppressing his caste petitioner has secured appointment for the post which was reserved for the Schedule Caste category. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has played fraud and mischief by misrepresenting and by producing fraudulent fabricated document and secured the appointment in the Department of Treasury. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner can be equated to a thief who has secured the fraudulent

¶104

¶105

caste certificate as per Annexure-A and having stolen the property he wants to retain the same, which is not permissible in law.

¶106

Learned counsel further contends that any person can challenge the fraudulent caste certificate issued or obtained by any person. It cannot be said that the initiation by the third party with regard to the fraudulent caste certificate is not maintainable. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Learned counsel further contends that under clause(2) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India, there is no scope for equating the Backward Class of vazantri caste with that of ‘Halleer’ caste as Article 341(2) of the Constitution of India. It is only the parliament which can include or exclude any category of caste coming within the list of Scheduled Caste specified in the notification. Learned counsel further

¶107

¶108

contends that petitioner has suppressed material facts and has played fraud on the authorities and the Court and has fabricated and forged Annexure-A caste certificate with an intention to secure employment. Under these circumstances, it should be dealt with iron hand. Therefore, on these submissions, he seeks for dismissal of the petition by imposing cost on the petitioner.

¶109

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 relies on the following decisions in support of his case:

¶110

1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MILIND reported in AIR 2001 SC 393;

¶111

2. SMT.GEETHANJALI vs. THE CANARA BANK, REP., BY ITS G.M., B’LORE & ORS. reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4384;

¶112

3. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAVI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR reported in (2007)1 SCC 80;

¶113

4. GEETA v. STATE OF M.P. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3892;

¶114

5. K.D.SHARMA v. SAIL reported in (2008)12 SCC 481;

¶115

¶116

6. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FCI AND ORS. v. JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND ORS. reported in AIR 2017 SC 3271;

¶117

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents, the following points arise for consideration of this Court:

¶118

i) Whether petitioner has made out any ground to quash Annexure-R?

¶119

ii) Whether petitioner has produced any material before respondents or Appellate Authority or before this Court to show that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste belonging to Scheduled Caste category?

¶120

It is not in dispute that petitioner had obtained a caste certificate by showing that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste (vazantri) and based on the said caste certificate, he secured an appointment as SDC in the office of Director of Treasury, KPSC against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of

¶121

¶122

said reservation, petitioner came to be promoted as First Division Assistant in the year 1997.

¶123

On the basis of complaint registered by one of the colleagues of petitioner namely Sri R.S.Bant, a complaint came to be registered before CRE Cell against the petitioner that the petitioner had obtained a false caste certificate based on which secured appointment in the Director of Treasury. It is not in dispute that based on the said complaint, the CRE cell conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the DCVC, Karwar. Thereafter, DCVC passed an order on 31.12.2002 holding that petitioner belongs to vazantri caste which is notified as backward class and hence, directed Tahsildar, Haliyal-4^th respondent herein to cancel the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner.

¶124

Aggrieved by said cancellation of said caste certificate, petitioner had approached this Court in WP.No.3951/2006 and by an order dated 16.03.2006, this Court was pleased to set aside the

¶125

¶126

order of DCVC and reserving liberty to competent authority to initiate proceedings against petitioner after issuing notice. Based on the said order of this Court, the caste certificate of petitioner was restored. Simultaneously, based on cancellation of caste certificate, the Director of Treasury discharged petitioner from service by its order dated 23.01.2009. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached this Court in WP.No.67044/2011 wherein this Court by order dated 31.01.2012 allowed writ petition and remitted the matter to the DCVC to afford an opportunity to petitioner. In the meanwhile, it could be seen that the petitioner preferred an application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.6396/2012 for his reinstatement into the service and by order dated 16.04.2014, the tribunal has allowed the application and directed the Director of Treasury to reinstate petitioner into service within one month. Accordingly, petitioner was reinstated and posted to Sub-treasury Office, Saundatti, Belgavi District.

¶127

¶128

This being state of affairs, the District Social Welfare Officer, Uttara Kannada District on behalf of DCVC called upon petitioner to furnish a reply vide letter dated 16.04.2014 to the report of Additional Director General of Police, CRE Cell, Bengaluru. Petitioner received the said letter and requested the DCVC to furnish copies of documents relied upon by the Additional Director General of Police for giving his report as the same was not furnished along with letter and that it would lead to violation of principles of natural justice.

¶129

On 14.07.2014, the Member Secretary of DCVC furnished required documents as sought for by the petitioner. Pursuant to which, petitioner sought two weeks’ time to submit his reply. On 03.09.2014, petitioner submitted his interim reply to the letter issued by DCVC contending that complaint registered against him by one R.S.Bant was due to jealousy and enviousness and that the documents collected behind

¶130

his back by the Directorate of CRE Cell cannot be

¶131

¶132

treated as evidence. It was further contended in the said reply that vazantri caste has emerged in the Government notification issued on 11.04.2002. Thereafter, DCVC by its order dated 23.01.2015 arrived at a conclusion that petitioner does not belong to ‘Halleer’ caste. On the other hand, he belongs to vazantri community. Accordingly, DCVC directed for cancellation of caste certificate issued to petitioner, based on which, the Tahsildar cancelled the caste certificate by its order dated 31.03.2015.

¶133

It is this order which the petitioner has challenged before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, M.S.Building at Bengaluru. After considering the contentions of petitioner and the documents produced before it, the Appellate Authority came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ Caste and it has further held that the petitioner belongs to vazantri community and

¶134

¶135

accordingly confirmed the order passed by DCVC and Tahsildar canceling the caste certificate of petitioner.

¶136

The contentions raised by petitioner is that the orders passed by DCVC, Tahsildar and Appellate Authority are not in accordance with law on the ground that no opportunity was provided to petitioner and the same will have to be considered based on the events as stated supra .

¶137

It is admitted by petitioner that he has received the said notice and participated in the enquiry by submitting a reply along with certain documents to substantiate his claim that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste. Therefore, it cannot be said by the petitioner that there was no opportunity provided him to participate in the enquiry or that the order of cancellation of caste certificate came to be passed behind his back. It is also seen that while considering all these issues, the second respondent herein has taken into account the entire gamut of material which are placed before CRE Cell including the statements of

¶138

¶139

mother and blood relations of the petitioner, wherein it is categorically admitted that the petitioner belongs to vazantri caste and not ‘Halleer’ caste as alleged.

¶140

In view of the above categorical finding given by Appellate Authority, it cannot be said that contentions and documents of the petitioner were not considered by second respondent. It is also relevant to mention here that petitioner has not produced any further material or document in support of his case to state that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste before the 2^nd respondent-Appellate Authority. In this view of the matter, it is essential to see whether ‘Halleer’ caste is same as vazantri. It would be relevant to extract Article 341(2) of the Constitution of India which reads as under:

¶141

“341. xxxxxx

¶142

(2) Parliament may by law include

¶143

in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause(1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a

¶144

¶145

notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”

¶146

On careful perusal of intent of Parliament, it is seen that it is only the Parliament which can include or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes any caste or race or tribe and which cannot be varied by any subsequent notification.

¶147

In the present case on hand, the only contention taken by petitioner is that he was not provided sufficient opportunity thereby principles of natural justice and fair opportunity has been deprived and he has also contended that DCVC would not be having jurisdiction to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the caste certificate as the caste certificate was issued prior to coming into force of the Act.

¶148

Sections 4-A(1) and 4-A(5) of the Act are

¶149

extracted herein:

¶150

“4-A. Issue of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certificate.─(1)

¶151

¶152

Any candidate or his parent or guardian belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes may, in order to claim benefit of reservation under Section 4, either for appointment to any service or post or for admission to a course of study in a University or any educational institution make an application to the Tahsildar in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of a Caste Certificate.

¶153

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶154

(5) The burden of proving that the candidate or his parent or guardian belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes shall be on the applicant.”

¶155

Therefore, the onus is on the petitioner to produce all material to prove that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ Caste and despite giving several opportunities, petitioner has miserably failed.

¶156

The decisions relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner would be of no assistance on the ground that a fair opportunity was provided to

¶157

¶158

the petitioner and he has participated in the enquiry and produced relevant documents through reply.

¶159

This aspect has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GEETA V. STATE OF M.P. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3892 wherein it

¶160

was held at paragraphs-14 to 16 and 21 as under:

¶161

“14. The forceful contention urged before us by the counsel for the appellant is that no opportunity was afforded to prove her caste before the High Level Caste Screening Committee and as such the finding recorded by the High Level Screening Committee is vitiated for non-observance of principles of natural justice. We do not agree.

¶162

15. Show cause notice was issued on 28.7.2003. It is not the case of the appellant that she has not received the show cause notice.

¶163

16. She was asked to appear at 11.30 A.M. on 14.8.2003 along with all necessary documents to prove her caste before the Committee. Paragraph 6 of the show cause notice reads:

¶164

¶165

“6. In this regard, the certificate/ documents which you wish to produce along with your response should be properly verified necessarily. In case of non-appearance on the fixed date, it will be deemed that you have nothing to say regarding your doubtful caste certificate and Investigation Committee will be free to take final decision in your matter on the basis of available record.”

¶166

21. Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we granted more time to the appellant, to produce any document, which will establish her tribe as Majhi, which is Scheduled Tribe, prior to 3.11.1977, but she utterly failed. This would clearly show that the Tribe Certificate showing the appellant as Majhi Tribe obtained or 29.8.1986 on the basis of Tribe Certificate of her father obtained on 3.11.1977 are without any documentary proof and manufactured documents.”

¶167

In the present case, the petitioner has produced documents in support of his case which has been considered by the competent authority while

¶168

¶169

passing the impugned order. Thereafter, though petitioner has challenged the said order before the 2^nd respondent-Appellate Authority, he has not placed any material other than what he had already produced before DCVC in support of his case to substantiate the fact that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste. To a pointed question put by this Court to the learned counsel for petitioner, as to whether why you have not placed any material before the Appellate Court and so also before this Court? there is no convincing answer from the learned counsel for petitioner. It is also relevant to see that till date even before this Court, no documents are produced by the petitioner to substantiate his case with cogent documents to show that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste, which according to the petitioner was not considered by the competent authority.

¶170

The makers of Constitution laid emphasis on quality and equality amongst citizens. If any person takes an undue advantage of the fact of

¶171

¶172

benevolent provision of the Constitution by obtaining benefits of reservation provided under the presidential order though he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays fraud on the Society but in effect and substance, he also plays fraud on the Constitution. On the basis of such false caste certificate, when a person secures an appointment to a post on the solemn basis that he or she belongs to a designated caste, which on verification by Scrutiny Committee is found to be false, that person encroaches upon the legal rights of genuine members of the reserved communities, whose entitlement and rights are negated by the appointment of said person. This aspect is fortified in the case of CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FCI AND ORS. v. JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND ORS. reported in AIR 2017 SC 3271 .

¶173

Petitioner has relied on the citation stated supra to contend that there is no opportunity provided, no enquiry conducted and that there is

¶174

¶175

violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner has also contended that the DCVC is not empowered to conduct verification of the caste certificate. As stated earlier, I am not impressed with the contention of the petitioner that above three aspects are ignored and violated by DCVC and Appellate Authority while deciding the mater. On the contrary these three aspects as contended by the petitioner have been answered by the learned counsel for respondent by relying on the authorities stated supra.

¶176

The issue with regard to whether DCVC is empowered to go into the aspect of verification of the caste certificate is no more res-integra in view of the Judgment of MADHURI PATIL ’s case reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. Further the said aspects have been elaborately discussed by Division bench of this Court in the case of SMT. GEETHANJALI stated supra, wherein it is clearly held that the decision made by the DCVC will prevail at over the decision of the Tahsildar regardless of whether the caste

¶177

¶178

certificate was issued prior to promulgation of DCVC. Further it is held in the said Judgment relying on the decision of the full bench in the case of R.VISHWANATH PILLAI vs STATE OF KERALA reported in 2004(2) SCC 105 , it cannot be said that the law laid down in MADHURI PATIL ’s case is applied retrospectively. It is further necessary to note in this case that, the Karnataka SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 and the Rules 1992 has come into force in the State of Karnataka, wherein powers have been given to the Verification Committee for each district for verification of the caste and income and caste certificate issued under Rule 4(a) or 4 (b) vide Section 4(c) of the said Act. Since enactment of the above said Act, it will only be the DCVC which is competent authority to look into the genuineness or otherwise of any caste certificate, even if it had been issued by the Tahsildar at an earlier point of time, In the present case, it is the case of the petitioner that the Tahsildar, Haliyal, had granted caste certificate to the petitioner on

¶179

¶180

27.12.1985. Hence, I do not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner that the DCVC would not be competent authority for verification of his caste certificate.

¶181

It would also be pertinent to note here that merely because the Tahsildar had issued the caste certificate, petitioner cannot claim absolute immunity, as DCVC can go into the question whether the caste certificate issued has been done rightly or not. This aspect is also fortified by the Judgment of STATE OF MAHARASTRA vs RAVI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR AND ANOTHER reported in 2007 (1) SCC 80 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at Paras-17, 18, 19 as follows:

¶182

“17. We, with respect, do not agree with the conclusion of the High Court that no enquiry was permissible at all, once it is found that the person concerned in whose favour a certificate had been granted to be notified as a Scheduled Tribe.

¶183

¶184

18. The question in regard to the purport and object for which such Committees are constituted came up for consideration before this Court in a large number of cases.

¶185

19. In Madhuri Patil, this Court directed constitution of such Caste Scrutiny Committees with a view to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and approval. This Court observed :

¶186

"Since the Scheduled Tribes are a nomadic class of citizens whose habitat being generally hilly regions or forests, results in their staying away from the mainstream of the national life. Therefore, the State is enjoined under our Constitution to provide facilities and opportunities for development of their scientific temper, educational advancement and economic improvement so that they may achieve excellence, equality of status and live with dignity. Reservation in admission to educational institutions and employment are major State policies to accord to the tribes, social and economic justice apart from other economic measures. Hence, the tribes, by reason of State's policy of reservation, have been given the exclusive right to admission

¶187

¶188

into educational institutions or exclusive right to employment to an office or post under the State etc. to the earmarked quota. For availment of such exclusive rights by citizens belonging to tribes, the President by a notification specified the Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities so as to entitle them to avail of such exclusive rights. The Union of India and the State Governments have prescribed the procedure and have entrusted duty and responsibility to Revenue Officers of gazetted cadre to issue social status certificate, after due verification"

¶189

The arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner that due to non conducting of enquiry the entire process of investigation and enquiry conducted by the DCVC is vitiated, is also not appealing to this Court for the reason already stated above that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry by filing reply and the same has been considered by DCVC and by the Appellate Court. This aspect fortified by Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in GEETA’s case

¶190

¶191

(2007 AIR SCW 3892) , stated supra, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held at Paras-14, 15, 17 and 21 as follows:

¶192

“14. The forceful contention urged before us by the counsel for the appellant is that no opportunity was afforded to prove her caste before the High Level Caste Screening Committee and as such the finding recorded by the High Level Screening Committee is vitiated for nonobservance of principles of natural justice. We do not agree.

¶193

15. Show cause notice was issued on 28.7.2003. It is not the case of the appellant that she has not received the show cause notice.

¶194

17. The next date fixed for hearing was 18.9.2003 on which date the impugned order was passed. In our view, therefore, adequate opportunity has been afforded to the appellant of personal hearing as well as to produce documents in support of her caste. In our view, it is sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice.

¶195

¶196

21. Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we granted more time to the appellant, to produce any document, which will establish her tribe as Majhi, which is Scheduled Tribe, prior to 3.11.1977, but she utterly failed. This would clearly show that the Tribe Certificate showing the appellant as Majhi Tribe obtained on 29.8.1986 on the basis of Tribe Certificate of her father obtained on 3.11.1977 are without any documentary proof and manufactured documents.”

¶197

Therefore, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice has been violated for more reason than one, that the petitioner has not produced any document or material before Appellate Court or before this Court to establish the fact that he belongs to ‘Halleer’ caste. At the cost of repetition to a pointed question to the learned counsel for petitioner as to whether any document in proof of his caste is produced either before Appellate Court or before this court. The same is answered in the negative. Hence, petitioner cannot contend that he was not provided

¶198

¶199

with an opportunity and that no enquiry was conducted and that principles of natural justice are violated.

¶200

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶201

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FCI AND ORS. v. JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND ORS.

¶202

reported in AIR 2017 SC 3271 , has laid down law with regard to the powers and functions of the Scrutiny Committee to verify the genuinity of the caste certificate and the powers to cancel the said caste certificate if it was obtained fraudulently. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that a person not belonging to SC or ST claiming himself to be the member of such caste procures bogus certificate is fraudulent under Constitution of India and that the impact of procuring fake or bogus caste certificate and obtaining appointment or admission from the reserved quota will have far-reaching grave consequences as meritorious candidate be deprived of reserved category to whom the post is reserved. The

¶203

¶204

reserved post will go to non-deserving candidate in such a case it is voilative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is not res-integra any more such bogus caste certificate based on which the appointment is secured would be rendered void and non-est, thereby rendering petitioner to be not entitled to any benefits of the said appointment.

¶205

In the present case, petitioner by obtaining a false caste certificate has usurped the job opportunity of another eligible deserving candidate and such persons cannot be permitted to let go scotfree of the illegal and fraudulent act as the societal good lies in ensuring probity. Therefore, having considered the entire materials placed by the parties and learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that petition does not stand to merit consideration. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the 2^nd respondent and the orders passed by third and fourth respondents in canceling

¶206

¶207

caste certificate do not call for any interference. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶208

ORDER

¶209

Writ petition is dismissed .

¶210

Sd/JUDGE

¶211

VK/LB