IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.316/2019(S-RES) c/w WRIT APPEALs No.189-193/2019 (GM-CC) IN WA No.316/2019 BETWEEN:
SHRI. HUCHARAYA SWAMY S/O LATE SHRI GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCCUPATION:CLERK IN CANARA BANK RIPPONPET BRANCH-577 418 SHIMOGA DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI. G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE J. C. ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE KUVEMPU ROAD SHIMOGA-577 201 3. THE DIRECTOR CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NO.1, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BLDG.
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2; SHRI. C. JAGADISH, SPL.G.A FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO. 45979/2015 DATED 23.01.2019.
IN WAs No.189-193/2019 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K. NIRMALA W/O K. SURESH RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS SINGLE WINDOW OPERATOR-A, CANARA BANK BANDER BRANCH MANGALORE-575 001 2. K.V. SHANKAR S/O K. VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NOW WORKING AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS SECTION, CANARA BANK MANGALORE-575 001 3. D.K. PRABHAKAR S/O LATE D.K. VENKATESH NOW WORKING AS CLERK CANARA BANK, BIJADI BRANCH BIJADI-576 222, UDUPI DISTRICT 4. S. SURESH S/O S. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NOW WORKING AS OFFICER CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE SHIMOGA-577 201 5. SMT. MUKTHA S. RAO W/O SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS SINGLE WINDOW OPERATOR-A, CANARA BANK RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BRANCH BANGALORE-560 098 ... APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. M. NAGA PRASANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. M.L SUVARNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. CANARA BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION & TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT 1970, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HEAD OFFICE, J. C. ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, NO.1, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BUILDING, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI. C. JAGADISH, SPL. G.A FOR R2) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.1.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITIONS 45948, 45950, 45952, 45954 AND 45955 OF 2015 AND ALLOW WRIT PETITION 45948, 45950, 45952, 45954 AND 45955 OF 2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AS PRAYED FOR BY THEM.
THESE WRIT APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.02.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T These two writ appeals are filed by the writ petitioners in W.Ps. No.56358-364/2014 and connected petitions, challenging the common order of dismissal dated January 23, 2019.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition.
3. Heard Shri. Nagaprasanna, learned Senior Advocate and Shri. G.S. Bhat, learned Advocate for writ petitioners, Shri. C.Jagadish, learned Special Government Advocate for the Director, Civil Rights Enforcement and Shri.T.P.Muthanna, learned Advocate for the Bank.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioners joined services with Canara Bank between December 26, 1978 and November 30, 1987 on the strength of Caste Certificates testifying that they belonged to ‘Kotegar community’ which was classified as ‘Scheduled Caste’. Petitioners had obtained Certificates in terms of Government orders then in force. Pursuant to decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind [(2001)4 SCC 4], the State Government issued a Notification on March 11, 2002 granting protection to persons who had obtained Caste Certificates on the strength of ‘synonymous caste’. In the said Notification, there was no mention about ‘Kotegar community’. By a subsequent Notification dated March 29, 2003, the State Government extended similar benefits under Notification dated March 11, 2002, to such persons belonging to Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara and Sarvegara, who had obtained Caste Certificates.
5. Petitioners' Caste Certificates were cancelled by the competent authority i.e., the District Caste Verification Committee and communicated to the Chairman of the Bank.
6. Criminal proceeding was initiated against petitioner No.1 by registering FIR No.164/2008 in Karkala Town Police Station. The same has been quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5234/2008. Criminal proceedings against petitioners No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 have also been quashed by this Court.
7. On July 28, 2014, the ADGP, Directorate of CRE Cell called upon the Bank to terminate services of petitioner No.9 on the ground that he had secured employment on the basis of a false Caste Certificate. The Bank issued a show cause notice to petitioner No.9 on October 20, 2015 calling upon him to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. Similar notices were issued to other petitioners on October 21, 2015. Petitioners have challenged the said notices in the instant writ petitions. The Hon'ble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, these appeals.
8. Shri.Nagaprasanna, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners in W.A. Nos. 189-193/2019 made the following submissions:
that petitioners have not misrepresented about their caste. The certificate issued to the petitioners are not ‘false certificates’ ;
the competent authority has issued Certificates testifying that petitioners belonged to the Scheduled Caste based on synonymous names of castes;
the State Government have protected petitioners and similarly situated persons by their order dated March 29, 2003;
the petitioners have fulfilled the requirement of Government Orders dated March 11, 2002 and March 29, 2003 and therefore, they are entitled for the benefit flowing under the said orders.
Accordingly, he prayed for allowing these appeals.
9. Shri.G.S.Bhat, for the petitioner in the connected appeal also argued on similar lines.
10. Shri.C.Jagadish, learned Special Government Advocate argued that petitioners, though did not belong to the Scheduled caste, have obtained Certificates on the ground that the caste which they belong is synonymous with ‘Kotegaara’. The Hon'ble Single Judge having considered the matter in extenso has rightly dismissed the writ petitions following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagadish Balaram Bahira and others1.
11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
12. It is not in dispute that petitioners have been appointed against posts reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled caste. Petitioners have obtained Certificates as belonging to ‘Kotegara’ community between 1977 and 1980.
13. The principal argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that they have not misrepresented before the Authorities with regard to their Castes. Therefore, the Certificates are not ‘false Certificates’. State Government have protected those persons who have obtained similar Certificates by issuing Notifications dated March 11, 2002 and March 29, 1 AIR 2017 SC 3271 2003. Therefore, petitioners are also entitled for protection under the said notification.
14. The issue involving synonymous names with ‘Kotegar’ Castes has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Paduthota Ramachandra Vs. Union of India2.
15. So far as the protection under the aforementioned Government Orders is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI, has held in paragraph No.53 that where a candidate obtains appointment to a post on the solemn basis that he belonged to a designated caste for which the post is meant and it is found upon verification that such claim was false, the services of such individual cannot be protected by taking recourse to administrative Circulars or Resolutions.
2 ILR 1995 KAR 2712 16. The Hon'ble Single Judge has dealt with the matter in extenso and placing reliance on the authorities recorded in the order has, in our considered view rightly dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, we are at one with the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge.
Resultantly these appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
In view of dismissal of the appeals, pending I.A. in W.A. No.316/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SPS