Rajkumar S Vs the Managing Director

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29809 WP No. 22954 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.22954 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAJKUMAR S. S/O.SREEDHAR S. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.108, KOTHUR VILLAGE PEDDAPALLI POST VIA OORGAUMPET KGF TALUK

¶8

KOLAR DISTRICT-563 121

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027

¶13

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND APPOINTING AUTHORITY KSRTC, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101

¶15

THE MEMBER SECRETARY THE DISTRICT BACKWARD CLASSES CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-573 101

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI G.RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R-3)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:29809 WP No. 22954 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 03.06.2025 SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-G; THE IMPUGNED DECISION DATED 02.06.2025 TAKEN BY RESPONDENT NO.3 - COMMITTEE VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.07.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned letter dated 03.06.2025 vide Annexure-G, impugned decision dated 02.06.2025 vide Annexure-H and impugned show cause notice dated 15.07.2025 vide Annexure-J and for other consequential reliefs.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29809 WP No. 22954 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to

¶29

Hindu Balajiga by caste and completed his SSLC during 2005-2006 at Sumathi Jain High School, Robertsonpet, KGF. The caste which is mentioned above falls under

¶30

Category II-A, the Backward Classes Community. The Tahsildar, KGF Taluk has issued a caste and income certificate dated 27.05.2025 to the petitioner and the same was issued for the purpose of education.

¶31

2.1 When this being the case, respondent No.2

¶32

issued a notification dated 17.03.2018 to fill up the posts of Technical Assistants Grade-III. In the said notification, 21 posts were reserved for II-A category. The petitioner applied for the said post by annexing the caste and income certificate obtained from the Tahsildar.

¶33

2.2 The petitioner was selected and an appointment

¶34

order was issued on 19.01.2024 and he was called to report for a training. He underwent training for a period of one year. Thereafter, respondent No.2 sent the income

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29809 WP No. 22954 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

and caste certificate produced by the petitioner to respondent No.3 for verification. Upon verification, it was decided that the caste and income certificate produced by the petitioner was invalid on the ground that the caste and income certificate was issued for the purpose of education and hence, the same is not valid.

¶38

2.3 On the basis of the decision of respondent No.3, a show cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 dated 15.07.2025 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his appointment should not be forfeited and also called upon the petitioner to submit his reply within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of the notice and consequential action would follow, if not answered to the show cause notice. It is this show cause notice that is questioned by the petitioner at Annexure-J.

¶39

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

¶40

for petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Balajiga by caste comes under category of II-A. The Tahsildar has

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29809 WP No. 22954 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

issued caste and income certificate for the purpose of education and that he has produced a valid caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar to the respondentauthority while applying for the post of Technical Assistant. He has not suppressed any material facts.

¶44

3.1 It is also contended by learned counsel that the petitioner need not secure two certificates to show his caste, one for education and one for appointment, as the caste certificate is issued showing the caste of the petitioner. Therefore, the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and produced by the petitioner to the respondent-authority is valid for the purpose of appointment as well. Under the circumstances, the show cause notice issued by the respondents is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶45

3.2 Learned counsel also contends that there cannot

¶46

be two separate classifications by the State Government in contravention to Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:29809 WP No. 22954 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Constitution of India. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel that the impugned show cause notice issued is liable to be quashed and the respondents be directed to accept the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar for the purpose of appointment of the petitioner in the respondent-KSRTC (for short, 'Corporation').

¶51

Per contra , learned Additional Government

¶52

Advocate for respondent No.3 and Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for KSRTC vehemently contend that the petition filed by the petitioner is premature and the same is not maintainable as Annexure-J, which is impugned before this Court is only a

¶53

show cause notice issued to the petitioner directing to show cause with regard to the caste certificate and its validity and authenticity and to reply to the show cause notice within a period of seven (07) days, failing which, the order would be passed. Apparently, no order has been passed except issuance of show cause notice. Hence, they contend that the petitioner can place relevant documents

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:29809 WP No. 22954 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

including the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar for

¶57

the purpose of education and appointment as well and on such submission of the documents, a suitable order would be passed by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶58

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for respondent-Corporation.

¶59

For the sake of brevity, I am not inclined to repeat the facts of the case.

¶60

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is being appointed with the respondent-Corporation as a Technical Assistant Grade-III on the basis of the case certificate produced, having obtained the same from the Tahsildar. A show cause notice is issued now, which is impugned herein and admittedly, no order is passed. The judgment in the

¶61

case of Smt.V.Sumitra vs. State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Social

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:29809 WP No. 22954 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Welfare Department and Others reported in 2025 SCC

¶65

OnLine Kar 6856 is applicable to the facts of this case.

¶66

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petition is premature.

¶67

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i) The petition is disposed off ;

¶70

ii) The petitioner is at liberty to file his reply to the show cause notice issued at Annexure-J by producing relevant documents and raise all contentions urged before this Court, which shall be considered by the respondent-authority including the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Smt.V.Sumitra vs. State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Social Welfare Department and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 6856 ;

¶71