P.Bharathi Murthy Vs the Joint Director

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28338 WP No. 3561 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 3561 OF 2022 (GM-CC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

P.BHARATHI MURTHY W/O. M DHANANJAYA MURTHY, R/AT MANJUNATHA NILAYA, NO. 05, 3^RD CROSS, CFRTI LAYOUT, BHOGADI 3^RD STAGE, MYSORE - 570 026,

¶11

Digitally signed by …PETITIONER SUMA B N (BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT AND: OF

¶12

KARNATAKA

¶13

THE JOINT DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, AND MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT OF DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶15

DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28338 WP No. 3561 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (ADMIN) AND MEMBER CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶19

CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MYSURU - 570 020 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. C JAGADISH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. ANANDA K., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 27.01.2022 ISSUED BY R1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the impugned show cause notice dated 27.01.2022 produced at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.1, by which, petitioner was called upon to be present before the committee and to produce relevant documents.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:28338 WP No. 3561 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner, who was issued with a caste certificate of she belonging to Korma community, had obtained employment with respondent No.5Institution and was relieved from her service on 28.02.2020. That the District Caste Verification Committee by order dated 08.12.2018 which was initiated at the instance of one Sivaswami, President of SC/ST Employees Association of respondent No.5, had cancelled the said caste certificate. Being aggrieved petitioner herein had preferred an appeal under Section 4-D of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.,) (Second Amendment) Act, 2004 before the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department in Appeal No. CR No.1/2019-20 which came to be dismissed, vide order dated 18.02.2020, as against which the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.5815/2020. The said writ petition came to be allowed by Order dated 16.07.2021 setting aside the impugned order, cancelling the caste certificate. However, a liberty was reserved to the employer of the petitioner, namely, respondent No.5 herein to seek validation of the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:28338 WP No. 3561 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

while seeking employment if it is so desired. Pursuant to the said liberty reserved by this Court, respondent No.5 had apparently made a representation to the District Caste Verification Committee ('DCVC' for short) which had again initiated the proceedings, resulting in issuance of notice to the petitioner as per Annexure-A, constraining the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶35

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a validation certificate is issued, DCVC loses its jurisdiction to revisit the matter and it becomes functus officio . Party aggrieved, if any, has to have recourse for filing an appeal under Section 4-D of the Act. He further submits employer if aggrieved was required to have filed an appeal and not make a representation as done in the instant case. Thus, the liberty reserved by this Court has been misinterpreted causing prejudice to the petitioner.

¶36

4. The Special counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 do not dispute the above proposition. He however submits that the respondent No.5 employer if advised, can

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:28338 WP No. 3561 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

prefer an appeal instead of giving a representation as already done.

¶41

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5,

¶42

on the other hand, submits that it would have recourse to the provisions of law in seeking appeal as provided.

¶43

6. Submission is placed on record.

¶44

7. In view of there being no controversy with regard to DCVC not having jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings as done in instant case, petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 27.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.1 and the consequent proceedings thereon are quashed. As observed above, any question with regard to the validation of the certificate shall only be made in the manner known in law, which is filing an appeal as provided under the Act, and if the respondent No.5 employer if so advised may have recourse in

¶45

that manner alone.

¶46

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶47

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

P.Bharathi Murthy v. the Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Bharathi Murthy v. the Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sowmya Vs Assistant Commissioner

Omar Sheriff Vs the Manager

Mr. N. Theerthagiri Vs the Authorised Officer

K. P. Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

S Sathyendraprakash Vs Superindent of Police

Sudarshan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka