Mallikarjunappa Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 45872 OF 2017 (GM-CC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O. M. MAHABALESWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NEXT TO KHADAR BASHA HOUS, OLD MINERVA CONVENT SCHOOL ROAD, N.G.O. COLONY, THYAGARAJANAGAR, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 522.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. R. B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY by SHWETHA VIDHANA SOUDHA, RAGHAVENDRA DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI, Location: HIGH BENGALURU- 560 001. COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 577 009.

¶16

HEAD MASTER, SRI. SWAMI VIVEKANANDA, HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, AJJANAGUDI ROAD, CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 522.

¶17

HEAD MASTER, JANASEVA EDUCATION CENTRE, BOYS RESIDENTIAL HIGH SCHOOL, CHENNENAHALLI, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT - 577 009.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHALLAKERE - 577 522.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1- R4 AND R7; (MA NOT FILED) R6- SERVED; V/O. DATED 13.04.2023, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION/ PROCEEDINGS/ ORDER DATED 4.4.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF SERIAL NO.3 WHICH CONCERNED TO THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEX-W AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO RECTIFY THE CASTE OF THE PETITIOENR AS "GANIGA" IN PLACE OF "LINGAYAT GANIGA" FOR ALL PURPOSES IN THE RECORD.

¶21

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

¶22

3 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶27

following reliefs:

¶28

i) ISSUE a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Resolution/proceedings/order dated 04-042017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Caste and Income Verification Committee, Chitradurga/ the Respondent No. 2 in respect of Serial No. 3 which concerned to the petitioner as per Annexure-W and consequently to direct the Respondent No. 2 to rectify the caste of the petitioner as "GANIGA" in place of "LINGAYAT GANIGA" for all purposes in the record;

¶29

ii] ISSUE any other writ, order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

The petitioner claims to belong to the Ganiga caste and a

¶31

caste certificate came to be issued in respect thereto by respondent No.7-Tahsildar. However, in the School records, his caste was shown as 'Lingayat Ganiga' and in that background, the petitioner has submitted the representation seeking for correction of his caste in the School records from 'Lingayat Ganiga' to 'Ganiga' to

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶33

which the petitioner belongs to. On the representation he submitted, the respondents called upon the petitioner to get a decree from a competent Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a original suit in O.S.No.18/2004 which was contested by the respondents. After trial, the Civil Court directed the rectification of the caste of the petitioner in all his education records by removing Lingayat Ganiga and inserting his caste Ganiga. The State challenged the same in RA.No.23/2005 which came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be set aside and suit came to be dismissed.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court in RA.No.23/2005, the petitioner has filed RSA No.2261/2007. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2014 disposed of the said RSA reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy before the Caste Verification Committee under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules Act, 1992. Pursuant to that the petitioner filed

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶36

an application before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Caste and Income Verification Committee, Chitradurga seeking for rectification and issuance of caste certificate in the name of Ganiga. Similar application was also filed by respondent Nos.3 to 7 being the officers in Education Department, the Head Master of the School and the Tahsildar. Though several documents were submitted by the petitioner starting from the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the year 2004, the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on the basis of fresh report of the Tahsildar stating that all entries have been made indicating that the petitioner belongs to Lingayat Ganiga. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶37

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner in the application filed way back on 05.11.2003 to Tahsildar who had issued the certificate who had clearly indicated that the petitioner though was shown to belong to Lingayat Ganiga community in the education records, he belongs to the Ganiga community

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶39

and as such, the request was made in the year 2003 for issuance of the certificate indicating that the petitioner belongs to Ganiga community in pursuance of which the certificate came to be issued. The further submission is that there is no further benefit for the petitioner by rectifying the caste of the petitioner from Lingayat Ganiga to Ganiga inasmuch as in terms of the notification dated 06.12.1999 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in the State of Karnataka, both Ganiga and Lingayat Ganiga are found at Sl. No.164 of the list of OBCs and as such, both Ganiga and Lingayat Ganiga coming under same classification, there is no additional benefit that the petitioner would derive by rectifying the same. The Caste Certificate having been issued as Ganiga, it is only the educational records which indicate that he belongs to Lingayat Ganiga. The rectification has been sought for by the petitioner to rectify the mistake which has occurred in all the records which reflect the true caste of the petitioner as that of Ganiga.

¶40

7 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶42

Learned AGA seeks to support the impugned order by contending that all the aspects which are required to be considered, have been considered.

¶43

The father and mother of the petitioner having given the caste of the petitioner as Lingayat Ganiga, the same has been recorded in the education records and as such, now the petitioner cannot seek to rectify the same. There is no clerical error which has occurred for such rectification. No new certificate can be issued in favour of the petitioner indicating the caste of the petitioner as being Ganiga instead of Lingayat Ganiga. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.V.Chandrakanth v. Sangappa and Others¹ , more

¶44

particularly paras 32 & 33 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶45

"32. As observed by the Division Bench, the order dated 27th January 2009 shows that 19 subcastes of Lingayat/Veerashaiva were included in Category III-B. One of the sub-castes was 'Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga'. However, by another notification issued within a month that is 28th February 2009, the caste mentioned in Serial Nos. 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 Category III-B were

¶46

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 934.

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶48

deleted and the position prevailing before 27th January 2009 was restored. Lingayat/VeerashaivaGaniga was deleted. The intent of the order was to extend the benefit of reservation under Category II-A to the Lingayat- Ganigas also.

¶49

33. The Division Bench found that the finding of the Single Judge that Hindu-Ganiga and Lingayat-Ganiga were two different castes was not possible to accept. A Lingayat is also a Hindu governed by the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. The caste of the Respondent No. 1 was thus shown as 'HinduLingayat' in the school registers by the Respondent No. 1's father.

¶50

By relying upon Chandrakanth's case referred to supra, learned AGA sought to contend that the Division Bench of this Court had set aside the findings of the Single Bench that Lingayat Ganiga and Lingayat are two different communities. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of the Division Bench by coming to a conclusion that the notification which had been issued on 27.01.2009 and classification made in the notification on 27.01.2009 was deleted by notification dated 28.02.2009, as such the petitioner cannot seek for benefit or change in the Caste Certificate.

¶51

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶52

In that background, learned AGA was called upon to produce the notification dated 27.01.2009 which has been produced today. A perusal of the said notification would indicate that item No.9 thereof indicates the caste name to be Lingayat/Veerashaiva Ganiga but however this classification at Sl.No.9 came to be deleted on 28.02.2009. It is in that background that the claim of the petitioner has to be considered without reference to the notification 27.01.2009 since such classification came to be deleted on 28.02.2009.

¶53

Heard Sri.R.B.Deshpande learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Mahantesh Shettar learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.7. Perused the records.

¶54

What is required to be seen is whether the petitioner would get any undue benefit by a change in the name of the caste of the petitioner as also whether the change of the caste is supported by the affidavits which have been placed on record. It is not in dispute that the caste of the petitioner in the education records was shown as Lingayat

¶55

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶56

Ganiga. However, when the petitioner filed an application for issuance of Caste Certificate filed in the year 2003 the petitioner had categorically brought to the notice of the concerned authorities that the entry of the caste of the petitioner in the School records is wrongly made as Lingayat Ganiga and had sought for issuance of Caste Certificate in the name of Ganiga. It is further stated that respondent No.7-Tahsildar had issued such a certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for rectification of the school records which resulted in filing of a suit where the petitioner succeeded. In the appeal, the judgment passed in the suit was set aside and second appeal had been filed by the petitioner and he was relegated to avail the remedies available under the Act of 1990 and in terms of Rules 1992. In that view of the matter, the petitioner had made an application before respondent No.2 i.e., District Caste and Income Verification Committee.

¶57

A perusal of the notification dated 06.12.1999 issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India indicates that the list in respect of other backward classes in the State of Andra Pradesh, Bihar,

¶58

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶59

Chandigarh and Goa at Sl No.164 coming under the OBC and for the State of Karnataka, Ganiga, Ligayat Ganiga, Ganigar are found. Thus, Ganiga is a separate classification from Lingayat Ganiga.

¶60

Though in the year 2009, Lingayat and Veerashaiva Ganiga were regarded as one and the sub-classification at Sl No.9 made by the State of Karnataka came to be deleted on 28.02.2009. Thus the position was restored to the notification dated 06.12.1999 as indicated supra there being no further amendment to the said classification thereafter. Thus it is clear that at Sl. No.164, Ganiga and Lingayat Ganiga come under OBC and are entitled for the very same benefit.

¶61

On enquiry whether Ganiga or Lingayat Ganiga would be entitled for different reservation under Article 15(4) and for employment under Article 16(4), learned AGA submits that there is no differentiation in the reservation which is available and all the benefits which are available either under Article 15(4) or 16(4) in respect of Ganiga or Lingayat Ganiga are same in nature.

¶62

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶63

Such being the case, the petitioner wanting to correct his caste has been made to run from pillar to the post and then filing a suit where he succeeded, subsequently resulting in an appeal filed by the State which came to be allowed, then the second appeal filed by the petitioner whereunder he was remanded to the remedy available under the Act, 1990.

¶64

There being no particular benefit or additional benefit which the petitioner can claim by getting his Caste Certificate rectified as Ganiga from that of Lingayat Ganiga which is shown in the educational records. I am of the considered opinion that the respondents misconstrued themselves and have on the basis of the entry made in the school records sought to contend that the petitioner would not be entitled for rectification.

¶65

Though there may be several errors which are made at the time of recording of the name of caste at the time of admission in the school so long as sufficient details and records are produced by the concerned person indicating the requirement of such correction, such correction ought

¶66

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶67

to have been allowed by the respondent authorities as made available in the present case as stated supra.

¶68

The petitioner in the application filed on 05.11.2023 itself had categorically informed about wrong entry made in the school records and sought for issuance of correct Caste Certificate as 'Ganiga' which came to be issued by Tahasildar. Thereafter same ought to have been taken into consideration for rectifying the entries made in the education records, not having done so, resulted in this entire litigation which could have been avoided, as such, I pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶71

(ii) A certiorari is issued order dated 04.04.2017 passed by respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Cast and Income Verification Committee, Chitradurga at Annexure W is quashed.

¶72

(iii) Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are directed to rectify the entry of the name of the caste of the petitioner as 'Ganiga' in terms of Caste Certificate issued by respondent No.7-Tahasildar on 25.11.2004 in all

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:13580 WP No. 45872 of 2017

¶74

14 -

¶75

education records within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶76

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶77

DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Mallikarjunappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjunappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. H. K. Traders Vs Unity Small Finance Bank

Reddygollahalli Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Annapurnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

K. Shrinath Hebbar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gayatri Devi P Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Sri. M Manjappa Vs the State of Karnataka