Allowed

Sri. Lohith.L v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024WP/55913/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of his caste certificate validation. High Court quashed impugned orders, quashing the District Caste Verification Committee and Appellate Authority decisions, directing re-validation, and directing RT Corporation to consider reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected; order dated 6.11.2015 and proceedings dated 5.3.2015 quashed; Committee directed to issue validity certificate; RTC directed to consider reinstatement within two months.

Sri. Lohith.L Vs the Commissioner — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24773 WP No. 55913 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 55913 OF 2015 (GM-CC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. LOHITH.L S/O.LATE LALU SETTY K.C., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A CHOWDESWARI TEMPLE STREET, MAMBALLY, YELANDUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 441.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P CHANGALARAYA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION, NO.16/D, SRI D.DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN, MILLER TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN, THE CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, * CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 441.

¶16

THE DISTRICT OFFICER BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, AND MEMBER SECRETARY, THE CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,

¶17

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT,

¶18

CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 441.

¶19

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

¶20

corrected vide court order dated 18.07.2024

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:24773 WP No. 55913 of 2015

¶23

CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶24

THE GENERAL MANAGER (TRAFFIC) AND APPOINTING AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. SARITA KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; MS. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶27

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6.11.2015 VIDE ANN-Y, OF THE R-1 APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS DATED 5.3.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-T, PASSED BY THE R-2 AND SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE R-1 APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS OF THE R-2 AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner asserts that he belongs to the 24 Mane Telugu Setty community, classified as Category-I. The Tahsildar issued a caste certificate dated 5.12.2013 confirming the petitioner’s belongs to 24 Mane Telugu Setty caste . Based on this certificate, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Traffic Inspector in respondent No. 4 - Corporation under Category-I.

¶31

Subsequently, the caste certificate was sent for validation under Section 4-C of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1990”).

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:24773 WP No. 55913 of 2015

¶34

The District Caste Verification Committee, exercising its powers under Section 4-C of the Act, 1990, rejected the petitioner’s claim for validation, stating that he does not belong to the 24 Mane Telugu Setty caste. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 4-D of the Act, 1990 before the Appellate Authority. On 6.11.2015, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, affirming the Committee’s decision. Hence, the petitioner has now filed the present petition challenging these orders.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that previously, on 2.9.1999, the Committee had validated a caste certificate for the petitioner, certifying that he belongs to 24 Mane Telugu Setty community. He further contends that during the proceedings before the Committee, a spot inspection was conducted which confirmed the petitioner’s caste as 24 Mane Telugu Setty. Despite this inspection report, the Committee disregarded the findings and passed the impugned order, which, lacks legal validity. In support of his argument, counsel cites the Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Minal vs. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1299).

¶36

In contrast, the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent - State contends that the petitioner made contradictory statements regarding his caste, claiming at different times to belong to Hindu Telugu Balija/Telugu Setty. Therefore, without clear evidence establishing that he

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:24773 WP No. 55913 of 2015

¶38

belongs to 24 Mane Telugu Setty community, the Committee’s decision and the Appellate Authority’s affirmation are justified, and they oppose interference in this matter.

¶39

The respondent - Corporation’s counsel reiterates the arguments put forth by the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶40

The arguments presented by both sides are duly considered:

¶41

Section 4 of the Act, 1990 governs the verification of caste certificates and states that any person who has obtained a caste certificate under Section 4-A or Section 4-B may apply to the Verification Committee for a validity certificate in the prescribed manner.

¶42

Sub-Clause (3) of Section 4 mandates the Verification Committee to either grant a validity certificate or reject the application within thirty days of receiving it. In cases where there is ambiguity regarding a person’s caste, Circular dated 12.3.2001 allows for spot inspections. Such inspections were conducted on 9.12.2014 and 30.12.2014 in the petitioner’s case, resulting in a report certifying that he belongs to 24 Mane Telugu Setty caste. Despite this, the Committee rejected the validation application citing allegations in school records regarding the petitioner’s caste, without specifying the source of these allegations.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24773 WP No. 55913 of 2015

¶44

Moreover, the petitioner had previously been issued a validity certificate on 2.9.1999 by the Committee, certifying that he belongs to 24 Mane Telugu Setty community, which remains valid to date without cancellation.

¶45

Drawing on a similar case precedent from the Bombay High Court, where family members were granted tribe validity certificates without challenge, the petitioner argues that the refusal to validate his certificate creates an anomaly, especially since his earlier validation was not revoked or questioned for fraud.

¶46

Therefore, the Committee and the Appellate Authority’s decision to deny validation of the petitioner’s caste certificate, despite previous validation and spot inspection findings, appears unjustified and contrary to the evidence on record.

¶47

In conclusion, unless evidence of fraud in obtaining the earlier validation certificate is presented, the impugned orders by the Committee and the Appellate Authority requires interference, given the petitioner’s consistent claim and the supporting spot inspection report. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The petition stands allowed.

¶50

ii) The impugned order dated 6.11.2015 passed by the respondent No.1, and the impugned proceedings dated 5.3.2015 on the file of the respondent No.2 are hereby quashed.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:24773 WP No. 55913 of 2015

¶53

iii) The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to issue validation of the certificate certifying that the petitioner belongs to 24 Mane Telugu Setty caste under Category-1.

¶54

iv) It is needless to state that upon the validation of the certificate granted in favour of the petitioner, the respondents No.4 and 5 are under an obligation to consider the representation to be filed by the petitioner to seek for reinstatement of his service, and if such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the respondents No. 4 and 5 to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

BKM

Sri. Lohith.L v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Lohith.L v. the 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

Roshni Mathan Pereira Vs State of Karnataka

K Ramesh Sastry Vs the Director General & Inspector General of Police

Karnataka Right to Information (R) Vs the Station House Officer

M/S Anand Ginning Factory Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kalabyraweshwara Transport Vs Union of India

M v Bhaskar Vs the State of Karnataka