Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagarathnamma vs The District Sc St Caste Verification ... on 3 March, 2023
-1-
WP No. 54449 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 54449 OF 2018 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.205, 2ND FLOOR,
SHRI SOMESHWARA ARCADE,
SANJEEVINI NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 072
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DISTRICT SC ST CASTE
VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
MYSURU DISTRICT,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Digitally
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 001
signed by
VALLI M
2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
Location:
HIGH COURT DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,
OF NO.1, I FLOOR, D.T.E. BUILDING,
KARNATAKA PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
3. MEMBER SECRETARY AND JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
DR.JAGA JEEVAN RAM BHAVAN,
PADUVARAHALLI,
MYSURU-570 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.JAGADEESH, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1 & R2
SMT.ANITHA N., HCGP FOR R3)
-2-
WP No. 54449 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH REGARD TO
VERIFICATION OF THE CASTE OF THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER PERTAINING TO THE VERIFICATION OF THE CASTE OF
THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-D DATED 29.07.2017 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner herein at Annexure-D, dated 29.07.2017 in No.Jani/SWD/D6/CC/CR/2017-18; Annexure-E, dated 13.08.2017 and Annexure-G, dated 15.11.2018 and a writ of mandamus quashing the report issued by respondent No.2 at annexure-A dated 03.08.2004 declaring the caste of the petitioner as "Pariwara" to be illegal and void ab initio.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued with a caste certificate stating that she belongs to "Nayaka" community classified as Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution of India in respect of State of Karnataka. On the basis of the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner, she was appointed as Hostel Warden in the Department of Social Welfare. This being so, the petitioner -3- WP No. 54449 of 2018 continued in the services and attained superannuation on 31.01.2016. It appears that on 14.07.1995, a complaint was lodged before respondent No.2 by one C Gopal, Editor, Harijana Hudaraka Sampadakaru, stating that the petitioner has obtained fake certificate claiming that she belongs to "Nayaka" community, in fact she belongs to "Pariwara" community, which is notified as Backward Class Category-I by the State Government under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. It is stated that based on the complaint lodged by the said person, respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry and submitted report to respondent No.3 to take appropriate action and to inform the decision taken by the District Caste Verification Committee as per Annexure-A, on 03.08.2004.
3. It is stated that pursuant to this, the District Caste Verification Committee issued notice to the petitioner to appear as per Annexures-D to G. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the said notices.
-4-WP No. 54449 of 2018
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, "Pariwara" and "Talawara" communities have been included as Synonym with "Nayaka" community by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Orders (Amendment) Act, 2020, dated 29.01.2022 and consequently, the State Government by its order dated 29.10.2022 has deleted "Talawara" and "Pariwara" communities from the list of Backward Class Category-I issued by the State Government on 30.03.2022. It is stated that "Pariwara" and "Talawara" are Synonym to "Nayaka" Scheduled Tribe and is retrospective in light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jayanna vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District and others reported in KLJ 2013 (1) Page No.177(FB), wherein at paragraph 14, it has been held as follows;
"14. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the original grantee's name was "Nayaka" in vernacular/Kannada. How this is to be spelt in English is the abiding questing that arises even before us. If we -5- WP No. 54449 of 2018 translate it as 'Naikda' or 'Nayaka', then it was included in 1950 Presidential enumeration. If we are to translate it as 'Naika' or 'Nayak' then it is to be found in the subsequent amendment of 1991 only. The translation should have been made with greater care by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter by the Deputy Commissioner. We are certain that the Scheduled Tribe is the same, attracting only the variant spelling in the translation. Both the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have erroneously concluded that since "Nayaka" (Naika or Nayak) was included as Scheduled Tribe only in 1991, the grantee did not fall within the purview of the PTCL Act and erroneously restored the land to the state. This error would not have manifested had the two authorities perceived the legal position that all entries in the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) order 1950 original of subsequent are only elucidatory and clarificatory in nature. To sum up, after careful cogitation we are the conviction that the view expressed by the Division Bench in Krishnappa and T.M. Rangaiah's cases has to be preferred. In these circumstances, assuming that "Nayaka" was included as a Scheduled Tribe in 1991, we shall nevertheless answer the Reference by stating that every inclusion would have retrospective effect and would therefore revert back to the Presidential Notification of 1950."
7. In light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jayanna's case stated supra, and in light of the submission -6- WP No. 54449 of 2018 made by learned counsel for the petitioner that, "Talawara" and "Pariwara" are synonym to "Nayaka" community and they have been held as Scheduled Tribe and the same would be retrospective in effect and reverts back to the Presidential Notification of 1950 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Order.
8. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, pass the following:
Order
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned notices at Annexures D to G are hereby quashed.
iii) The petitioner to be treated as belonging to "Pariwara" which is synonym to "Nayaka" community which is Scheduled Tribe.
iv) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
MV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8