IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8209 OF 2016 (GM-CC) BETWEEN:
SMT.B.R.GOPAMMA W/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.1255, PADUVANA ROAD KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE.
(By Mr.V.R.SARATHY, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 570 001.
2. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER OFFICE OF DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE MYSORE DISTRICT GOVT.GENERAL BOYS HOSTEL OPP TO SRI.MURGDEVI TEMPLE NAZARBAD MYSORE – 570 010.
3. THE TAHASILDAR MYSORE TALUKA MYSORE – 570 001.
4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE CELL … PETITIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 570 008.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 570 006.
6. SRI.R.S.MAHADEV S/O SANNA RAMAIAH RAVANDUR S KOPPAL VILLAGE PERIYA PATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107.
7. THE POLICE INSPECTOR NAZARBAD POLICE STATION MYSORE – 570 008.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr.C.JAGADISH, SPL.COUNSEL FOR R-1 TO R-5 & R-7 Mr.A.NAGARAJAPPA,ADV. FOR R-6 -ABSENT) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.12.2015 CONDUCTED BY THE R-1 COMMITTEE(ANNEX-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE CRIME NO.0406/2014, DATED: 18.12.2014 REGISTERED AS FIR NO.236/2014, DATED 19.12.2014 AT NAZARBAD POLICE STATION ON FILE OF 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION COURT, MYSORE (ANNEX-N) REGISTERED ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE R-4 AS ILLEGAL AND IN-OPERATIVE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.V.R.Sarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7.
None for the respondent No.6.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 26.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.1 by which the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner to the fact that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community has been cancelled on the ground that she has failed to produce any document in order to substantiate the fact that she belongs to Adi Karnataka Caste, which is notified Scheduled Caste.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner married one Govindaiah, a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner obtained the caste certificate some time in the year 1979 and thereafter, was appointed as Kannada Teacher in an aided high school namely J.S.S. High School on the basis of the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner, on 05.11.1979. The respondent No.4 submitted a complaint on 08.09.2011 against the petitioner seeking an action against her on the ground that the petitioner has obtained caste certificate by making false averments and is enjoying the benefits of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community and has secured the employment.
5. Thereupon, respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice on 30.01.2012. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued a notice on 25.06.2012 calling upon the petitioner to participate in an enquiry as per the circular dated 30.06.2007. The petitioner attended the enquiry and submitted a reply on 13.07.2012. By an order dated 28.06.2013, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation, and challenged the order of cancellation of caste certificate issued by the respondent No.3 on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate, before this Court by filing W.P.No.33848/2013. The said writ petition was allowed by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 12.06.2014 and the order passed by the said Tahsildar was quashed and the matter was remitted to the District Caste Verification Committee.
6. The District Caste Verification Committee, however, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, by an order dated 11.09.2014, again cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.4 registered a criminal case against the petitioner for the offences under Section 3(1)(9) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on 19.12.2014. The aforesaid order dated 11.09.2014 was subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.55478/2014 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed on 13.01.2015 by a Bench of this Court and again the matter was remitted to the respondent No.1 for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice of the proceeding. During the pendency of the proceeding before the District Caste Verification Committee, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation in September 2015. By an order dated 26.12.2015, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief as stated supra.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not obtain the caste certificate by any misrepresentation or by playing any fraud. It is further submitted that the petitioner had obtained the caste certificate in the year 1979, as per the legal position which prevailed in 1979 in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘N.E.HORO Vs. JAHAN ARA JAIPAL SINGH’ AIR (1972) 1 SCC 771. However, the legal position was reversed by the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘VALSAMMA PAUL Vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY’ (1996) 3 SCC 545. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has not obtained the caste certificate either by playing fraud or by any sort of misrepresentation, therefore, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner could not have been cancelled. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in N.E.HORO, supra, VALSAMMA PAUL supra, ‘AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA’ (2013) 4 SCC 465, ‘KAVITA SOLUNKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS’ (2012) 8 SCC 430, ‘VICE- CHANCELLOR-CUM-CHAIRMAN Vs. T.RAJESWARI AND ORS.’ 2002 (3) ALD 1 OF ANDHRA HIGH COURT, ‘KALAVATHI S.NERGI Vs. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, UDUPI’ IN W.A.NO.392/2009, ‘KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Vs. SHANTI ACHARYA SISINGI’ IN W.P.(C) 4743/2008 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ‘P.VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER’ IN W.P.NO.3899/2013 OF MADRAS HIGH COURT.
8. It is further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SCC 3271 does not apply to the fact situation of the case as in the aforesaid decision, the caste certificate was obtained by playing fraud. It is also submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘G.S.VASANTHALAISHMI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’ dated 03.09.2012 does not apply to the fact situation of the case. In this connection, the attention of this Court has been invited to paragraph 3 of the order. On the other hand, learned Special counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 has invited the attention of this Court to the decisions of the Supreme Court in ‘CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FCI, supra and in ‘JAYASHRI BHASKAR GOSAVI Vs. VISHWANATH KRISHNATH PANKE AND OTHERS’ (2016) 13 SCC 312. It is submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of G.S.VASANTHALAKSHMI, supra, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
9. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in the case of N.E.HORO, supra held that when a non-munda woman is married to a munda male and if the marriage is approved and sanctioned by the Panchayat of that tribe, the marriage is valid and such a woman becomes member of the munda tribe. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision by the Supreme Court was over ruled by it in the case of VALSAMMA PAUL, supra in the year 1996. The petitioner has obtained the caste certificate in the year 1979 after marrying a person belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner has not played any fraud or made a misrepresentation with regard to any fact while obtaining the caste certificate. The caste certificate was issued to the petitioner as per the legal position which prevailed at the time of issuance of caste certificate. Similar view has been taken by Division Bench of this Court in the case of KALAVATHI S.NERGI supra, wherein it has been held that where a person made an application under the belief that he is entitled to status of Scheduled Caste community on account of marriage as per the legal position prevalent at that point of time which has subsequently been reversed, the employment of such a person cannot be held to be illegal or improper. Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in VICE-CHANCELLOR-CUM- CHAIRMAN, supra, has held that when there was no fraud or misrepresentation committed by a person while obtaining the caste certificate, and the aforesaid certificate having been accepted by the authority and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in VALSAMMA’S case being subsequent in point of time, no case for interference with the order of appointment is made out particularly after a period of 13 years. In KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHATAN AND IN P.VIJAYALAKSHMI, supra, similar view has been taken by Delhi High Court and Madras High Court, respectively. The Supreme Court in the case of KAVITA SOLUNKE, supra, has held that if no fraud or fabrication or any misrepresentation has been committed by a person, the same would not disentitle him to claim relief from the Court and the benefit flowing from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MILIND’ (2001) 1 SCC 4, was extended to the appellant in that case.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner has obtained the caste certificate in the year 1979. Thereafter, she has served as a teacher and has superannuated during the pendency of this litigation in the year 2015. There has been no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. This Court is conscious about the legal position that when the Supreme Court declares a law, it is applicable to all the cases, unless the Supreme Court expressly states that it is prospective in nature. The petitioner in peculiar facts of the case is entitled to the benefit of belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Depriving the petitioner of the benefit of a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste category in the peculiar fact situation of the case, after a period of 36 years cannot be said to be justified, specially in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.
11. Sofar as reliance placed by respondents on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of G.S.VASANTHALAKSHMI, supra, is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid decision the previous Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of KALAVATHI S.NERGI was not referred to which was prior in point of time, therefore the earlier Division Bench binds this Court. Besides that, in the case of G.S.VASANTHALAKSHMI, supra, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner in the said case, after seeking divorce from her husband, had got issued a certificate as person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community which was subsequently revoked. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision do not apply to the fact situation of this case. Similarly, in CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FCI, supra, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case wherein the caste certificate was obtained by playing fraud. Therefore, the aforesaid decision does not apply to the fact situation of the case.
12. In view of preceding analysis, the impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2015 as well as FIR registered against the petitioner dated 19.12.2014 are hereby quashed. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to terminal benefits on the basis of the caste certificate issued in her favour. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim benefit of a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste in future.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV