Quashed

Danush N S v. District Caste Verification Committee

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022WP/11489/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged impugned communication directing him to submit a validity certificate regarding his Beda Jangama caste status. Court quashed referral to Tahsildar, restricting jurisdiction to District Caste Verification Committee.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned communication reserving liberty to the first respondent to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.

Danush N S Vs District Caste Verification… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11489 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 11489 OF 2020 (GM-CC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DANUSH N S S/O D.SHIVAKUMAR ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶9

OCC: PVT SERVICE, R/O NAGAPALLI GRAM, HEBBUR HOBLI, TQ AND DIST TUMKUR

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE TUMKUR DISTRICT,

¶14

BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶16

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, MAIN ROAD, TUMKUR.

¶18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION TUMKUR

¶19

THE SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR,

¶20

SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,

¶21

¶22

WP No. 11489 of 2020

¶23

TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR GRADE II OFFICE OF THE TAHISLDAR, TALUK AND DIST - TUMKUR,.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXUREB PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN AND ANNEXURE-D DATED 1.9.20 PASSED BY THE R-3 AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 01-09-2020 passed by the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner.

¶31

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for

¶32

¶33

WP No. 11489 of 2020

¶34

respondent No.1 and Sri B.V.Krishna, learned counsel

¶35

appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶36

Sans details, the facts in brief are as follows:-

¶37

The petitioner applies for a caste certificate claiming that

¶38

he belongs to Beda Jangama caste. It is the claim of the petitioner that after a local inspection and report thereto, he was given a caste certificate that he belongs to Beda Jangama. On the basis of the caste certificate, the petitioner obtained appointment as a Police Constable. After his appointment, it appears, a communication is sent to the Tahsildar to submit a validity certificate by conducting an inquiry. This communication is what drives the petitioner to this court in the subject petition.

¶39

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent had no jurisdiction to refer it to the fourth respondent to issue a validity certificate with regard to the caste status of the petitioner. It is only the first respondent/the District Caste Verification Committee that could take up the issue. This position in law is not disputed by the

¶40

¶41

WP No. 11489 of 2020

¶42

learned counsel for respondent No.1. The only submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that the order be quashed and liberty be reserved in the first respondent to act in accordance with law i.e., Rule 4-F of the Karnataka SC/ST & other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992. Placing the said submission on record, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned communication reserving the liberty in the first respondent to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶43

Ordered accordingly.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

SJK

Danush N S v. District Caste Verification Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Danush N S v. District Caste Verification Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Consumer Federation Ltd. Vs the Deputy Director

Mr Hari Yogendra Tripathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M S Harish Vs Smt. Shubhamangala

Shivprakash Vs Additional Director General of Police

Sri. a. S. Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shanmukhaswamy Vs the District Caste Verification Committee