IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.19723 OF 2014 (GM-CC) BETWEEN:
SRI. M. SURESHA S/O M. MADHAVA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O URAMAL ROAD CHIKKAMUDNOOR VILLAGE & POST, PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-574201. (By Mr. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE-575003.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-574201.
4. THE TAHASILDAR PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-574201.
(By Mr. C. JAGADISH, SPL. GOVT. ADV.) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement vide Ann-A dated 19-10-2013 issued by the R-4. Direct the R-4 to issue caste certificate to the petitioner in compliance of the orders vide Ann-B passed by the R-3 dated 20-8-2013 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.10.2013 issued by the respondent No.4. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent No.4 to issue caste certificate to the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 20.08.2013.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing a revision under Section 4-F of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). However, the petitioner has not availed the aforesaid alternative remedy. The aforesaid legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the petitioner be granted the liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner for filing a revision.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the validity of the order dated 19.10.2013 in the revision before the Deputy Commissioner as prescribed under Section 4-F of the Act.
Sd/- JUDGE RV