Allowed

Sri. Basanagouda Shanmukhappa Patil v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2023WP/100261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order categorizing the petitioner as Category III(B) instead of II(A). Relying on Shivappa (WP No. 106057/2015), the Court directed the District Committee to issue a caste validation certificate classifying the petitioner as Category II(A) within three months, holding that alternative remedies did not bar writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; directions issued to Respondent No.1 to issue caste validation certificate classifying petitioner as Category II(A) within three months.

Sri. Basanagouda Shanmukhappa Patil… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100261 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100261 OF 2023 (GM-CC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. BASANAGOUDA SHANMUKHAPPA PATIL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC.: WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT IN KARNATAKA STATE AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., CURRENTLY UNDER SUSPENSION, R/O. GUDAGERI, TQ. KUNDAGOL, DHARWAD-581113.

¶10

PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, DHARWAD-580001.

¶14

THE MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, DHARWAD-580001.

¶15

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2023.01.2712:36:33 +0530

¶16

COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CASTES WELFARE AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CASTE/ INCOME VERIFICATION, NO.16/D, DEVRAJ URS BHAVAN, 3^RD FLOOR, NEAR MILLER LAKE, VASANTNAGAR, BENGALURU-560052.

¶17

KARNATAKA STATE AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, POST BOX-NO.1811, BENGALURU-560018.

¶18

TAHSILDAR, KUNDGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-580 001.

¶19

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R5)

¶20

¶21

WP No. 100261 of 2023

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H DATED 30.11.2022 & ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-H dated 30.11.2022, Annexure-C dated 02.07.2022 and for a direction to the respondent No.1Committee to issue caste validation certificate to the petitioner in terms of the letter at Annexure-F dated 07.07.2022 showing the petitioner as belonging to Hindu-Sadar (Category II(A)) and for other reliefs.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents 3 and 4 and perused the material on record.

¶27

The material on record discloses that the petitioner belongs to Hindu-Sadar community which was classified and categorized as III(B) vide Government Order dated 27.01.2009. However, subsequently vide order dated 28.02.2009, the earlier Government

¶28

¶29

WP No. 100261 of 2023

¶30

Order dated 27.01.2009 was withdrawn and the Hindu-Sadar community to which the petitioner belongs was classified and categorized under category II(A) pursuant to which a caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2012 and the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lineman at the respondent No.4-Company on 24.04.2017. Subsequently, on 07.07.2022 a certificate was issued by the Department of Backward Castes Welfare to the respondent No.1-Committee to the effect that Hindu-Sadar as the petitioner come under the Category-II(A).

¶31

It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent No.1-Committee issued a notice on 30.11.2022 calling upon the petitioner to produce documents to establish his status. Pursuant thereto the petitioner produced all relevant documents before the respondent No.1Committee which has proceeded to pass the impugned order canceling the caste certificate of the petitioner, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed particularly

¶33

¶34

WP No. 100261 of 2023

¶35

when the petitioner is available with alternative and efficacious remedy of preferring appeal as contemplated under Rule 4(d) r/w Rule 7(5) of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992

¶36

The issue as to whether the Hindu-Sadar community belong to Category II(A) came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Shivappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner & Others (W.P. No.

¶37

106057/2015) dated 06.09.2022 wherein it was held as under:

¶38

“ The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E, the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by respondent No.3 vide AnnexureW and also sought mandamus directing the respondent to issue caste validation certificate to the petitioner holding that he belongs to category II-A though they belong to Lingayat Community as per school records.

¶39

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under: Government of Karnataka issued a notification on 11.04.2002 stating that ‘Sadar’ community come under category II-A. Respondent No.6 being competent authority has issued caste certificate to the petitioner stating that petitioner belongs to ‘Sadar’ community and it falls under category II-A. Based on the caste certificate, the petitioner applied for the post of Headmaster in Government High School in Education Department. The said post was reserved for II-A category candidate. The selection committee of the Education Department after verifying all the relevant records selected the petitioner for the post of Headmaster in

¶40

¶41

WP No. 100261 of 2023

¶42

Government High School, subject to production of caste validation certificate from respondent No.2. The concerned officer after verification of records and making local enquiry submitted a report to respondent No.2 stating that petitioner belong to ‘Sadar’ community. The petitioner was not issued with the caste validation - 4 - WP No.106057 of 2015 certificate by the 2nd respondent. The respondents proceeded to hold a local enquiry as per the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition filed by similarly placed persons. Respondent No.2 by holding perfunctory enquiry and without verifying the records rejected the claim of validation certificate on the basis of Venkata Swamy II Commission report which has been rejected by the Government vide Order dated 13.10.1986. The said order of rejection of caste validation certificate was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.82292/2013. This Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground that petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

¶43

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶44

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, ‘Sadar’ community falls under category ‘II-A’ and accordingly the 6th respondent was justified in issuing the caste certificate. He submits that, the 2nd respondent has committed an error in rejecting the claim of validation certificate based on the Venkat Swamy II Commission report. He submits that, the said report was rejected by the Government vide order dated 13.10.1986. He further submits that in the identical matter the Hon’ble Apex Court has disposed of the Civil Appeal No.4963/2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.7241/2021) in the case of M.V.Chandrakanth Vs. Sangappa & others. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶45

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that, the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted relief to the similarly placed persons

¶46

¶47

WP No. 100261 of 2023

¶48

in the case of M.V.Chandrakanth (supra). He submits that, the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passedby the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.V.Chandrakanth (supra).

¶49

6. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶50

7. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner has applied for issuance of caste certificate. Respondent No.6 after enquiry has issued caste certificate stating that the petitioner belongs to ‘IIA’ category. On the basis of the said caste certificate issued by the 6th respondent, the petitioner has applied for the post of Head Master in the Government High School. The petitioner was selected and appointed as an Head Master of Government High School. The appointment of the petitioner was subject to verification and production of caste validation certificate. The petitioner could not produce the caste validation certificate. The petitioner has applied for issuance of caste validation certificate. The respondents have rejected the said claim on the basis of Venkat Swamy II Commission report. The Government vide order dated 13.10.1986 rejected the Commission report of Venkata Swamy II.

¶51

8. The respondents relying on Venkata Swamy Commission report, has passed the order. The rejection of caste validation certificate was challenged by the similarly placed petitioners in W.P.No.82292/2013. The said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the petitioners there in to prefer appeal. The petitioner preferred appeal as per the order passed in the W.P.No.82292/2013. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioners on the strength of the caste certificate issued by the 6th respondent appointed for the post of Head Master in the Government High School. The Government of Karnataka has issued a Government order on 27.01.2009 to the effect that, 19 sub-castes within Veerashaiva Lingayat were included in category III-B of the reservation policy. Sub-caste ‘Sadar’ is included against 15% reserved for category II-A and only 5% posts were reserved for category III-B. By order dated - 8 - WP

¶52

¶53

WP No. 100261 of 2023

¶54

No.106057 of 2015 28.02.2009, the Government has reverted the position of reservation of some of the sub-castes except “Lingayath/Veerashaiva/Veerashaiva Panchamasali caste which is at Sl.No.13 vide order dated 27.01.2009. Subcaste ‘Sadar’ is included as sub-caste of Veerashiva Lingayath. The Lingayath caste continued to remain in category III-B.

¶55

9. The Division Bench of this Court up held the said notification dated 28.02.2009. After perusal of the document produced by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the caste certificate issued by the 6^th respondent is in accordance with notification dated 30.03.2002 vide Annexure-F.

¶56

10. The issue involved in writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.V.Chandrakant (supra). In view of the above discussion, the appellate authority has committed error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 vide - 9 - WP No.106057 of 2015 Annexures-E & W respectively are contrary to law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.V.Chandrakant (supra). 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶59

The impugned orders dated 24.07.2013 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E and the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-W are hereby set aside.

¶60

Respondent No.1 is directed to issue caste validation certificate to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-F within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

¶61

As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment, this Court has categorically held that Hindu-Sadar, such as the petitioner, have to

¶62

¶63

WP No. 100261 of 2023

¶64

be classified under Category-II(A) and not under the category III(B). Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1-Committee classifying and categorizing the petitioner, Hindu-Sadar under III(B) instead of II(A) is contrary to law as well as the aforesaid judgment of this Court and as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed and necessary directions to be issued to respondent No.1-Committee in this regard.

¶65

Insofar as the contentions urged by the respondent with regard to availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal is concerned, having regard to the judgment of this Court in Shivappa supra, it is clear that mere availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, will not come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such the said contention cannot be accepted.

¶66

In the result, I pass the following order.

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed;

¶69

ii) Impugned orders at Annexure-H and Annexure-C are hereby

¶70

quashed;

¶71

¶72

WP No. 100261 of 2023

¶73

iii) Respondent No.1-Committee is directed to issue caste validation certificate to the petitioner by classifying, describing and categorizing the petitioner under II(A), as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶74

BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

¶75

SD JUDGE

Sri. Basanagouda Shanmukhappa Patil v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Basanagouda Shanmukhappa Patil v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Netaji Integrated Rural Development Society, R/by Iranna S/O Shivarudrappa Konnur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Yellavva W/O Fakeerappa Godi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar Ramachandra Desai, Vs the Karwar Urban

Koppal District Madiga Khemabhivrudi Sangh (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula W/O Sachin Vani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Giridhar S/O Yalagurdacharya Hunnur Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer