C Gopalappa S/O Chikkahanumanthappa vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 14 September, 2009

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

C Gopalappa S/O Chikkahanumanthappa vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 14 September, 2009

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 

DATED THIS THE I4?" DAY QE SEP"FEM.13}§R:::20Q9,I: C I I 

BEFORE;  . in C

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AiiV';4ti§JD_VBi§:if1%ARED§DY I "

WRIT PETITION No.----I f§§§7"oE 2008 v(-S--.D:§IS)

BETWEEN :

C-G0pa1appa»<sII   '     2
Son of    
@       
AgedVab.Q_u'f4_5' Yﬁggg,   C'

Assistant M*ainageI:i,4 4'  --
Regio-nal- Ofﬁee _C)Tie"I1!..aVE'-- C '

Insurance 'Con'1pany' '1 IiIiIi_téd;"
Eangaiorascso 025.    

Residing at No.4"79, I

3W*A Crus_s, 2""'Bioe-'.<;,'

'A ' V33": Phase,_B'a_nashankri,

Ac,"

'  B_£iFH0E1'1Qa:1'C¥V5 6:Uf}85. .. . PETITIONER

 Shri .M}.,;C.Narasimha;1 Associates)

 AA ANE'

C'   The Orientai Insurance Company Limited

Company Incorporated under Companies Act,
A PSU, wholly owned by Gove1"nrnent of India,
Having its Registered Office at

Orientai House, A-25/27, Asif Ali Road,

New Delhi ~»» 1 I0 002



'T3
'w

Represented by its PA Holder

And Authorised Executive,

The Regional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Regional Office, No.44/45,
Residency Road Cross,

Bangalore -- 560 025   

2. The Chairrnan--cu1'n«Managing,VD:i.reetor'"  

The Oriental Insurance Co.mpai1y_ Limited,'   
Registered Office at Orie.nta.l,House_,. '    
A--25/27, Asif Ali Road, A *

New Delhi -- 110 (102  . _ 

The Appellate Atzthiorityg  :   

Under Regulation  ,    RESPONDENTS

(By ,lAdy'oc_'ate) 

,   Thietwnra Petitionis filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
thej,Constitution.of India praying to quash the order dated

'  A 1'}-,O7.?2007 ..passedljy Respondent no.1 removing the petitioner
V _t'ro_n1--.serV'icVe"yide Annexure ~»~« A to quash the order dated

1;! 072008 Vipassed by the Appellate Authority under the
"regt:ilationsj_ namely, Chairrnan«curn~Managing Director the

R'espo:_ident"'no.2 Vide Annexure -- B.

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing

A R V(gI?e?Gi'oup) this day, the Court made the following: ~

6



ORDER

The petition coming on for Preliminary Group) is considered for final dispgjisaliii' ' -1' Heard Shri. M.C. »y.Narasimli2..n, Siet;i.or' ° a earin for the counsel for the_.iPetitioner_ thegcounsel for P9 g . _ 3 the Respondent.

2. The facts as cons'idje.ration of this writ petition are thattlaeilpetitioiirer hails from a rural family from a caste known as Ku1*iubiia'.from Tamilnadu. The said community i:iL_":Ta:r1iln,adu isal-slo"considered as Scheduled Tribe in some i the 'State. His parents had migrated from Tamilnadu to_44Karnatal§j.a search of work. The petitioner was educated in AA 'l"amilr1_adu and then migrated to Ka_rnatal<a in the year l97l. ii fThe'i social habits, customs and rituals observed by the petitioner "land the family, elders in his community were socially and educationally backward and were called Kadukurubas as they 6 seniority basis and therefore the discrepancy. if having described him as Kadukuruba, which was so_ug'ht against him at a later point of time_d,oesii'.,nC'§t_'res'u..ltv.__in.,,any prejudice to any person. In .tt1e___year'2_OUf) the"reVsponde;nt.iha_d'; written to the Bangalore District "C,aste_ Verii'i~c:ation Cornrnittee, to contend that the "pi-ititio-ne1i.,':wiasjfai'tl:{uruba and not a Kadukuruba. '

4. .Inl'«.,resipo.r1setoi:.this..__.-anienqﬁiry was held and the petitioner "upon to show--cause, had filed written objections. K"_l"he..,i\,.'t'Cornpetent Authority namely, the of tih'e..._.Caste Verification Committee, however, "',;Jassed~4,_ani'"order invalidating the caste certificate issued in fayiounofpetitioneiz This order was questioned before the A,Appei»!ate Authority. The respondent, however, took the stand ii an appeal was not maintainable in respect of the caste

-'certificate issued to employees of Public Sector Undertakings and dismissed the appeal.

3 This was contrary to the steps taken by t}}.e."respio"rid'enit'_'stdr invoke the jurisdiction of the ve:rymsame1_Caste'"V'eriﬁcati'on T Committee. The order of the Appei1'a.te"Atuthotiit:_yA was in question in Writ Petition No.i?Li5..S64/2003,.vvhieh i\}-,{as allowed and the order of the :"+i_};i'i3e].la.te quashed and the matter was rernanded..the i,LDistrict»--.I_*(.jaste Verification Comrrir'ttee4_fh_r a§fr'e.sii,enqiuiry. j. V i Committee passed another order 'Was challenged by the respondent in';w'ri.t. proceedings vW.P. No.238/2005. Pursuant to the the enquiry and directing the respondent to ~_d'rop i'a11i_"_vproceedings. Thereafter a Government order dated was issued directing the respondent to drop all iif'u.rther proceedings and preserve the tenure of service of the i it petitioner. 3 The Caste Verification Committee on rem_an'd«dVirejctr:__d to the respondent--Compariy to drop all further preserve the tenure of the service of_the_"petitiiC.ner while:"q__uoti_i1g the Government Order dated:_l"l.,.03.2i002. challenged the said order by_....xiQay_ writ"'petiti.dn in W.P. No.238/2005 and an hf in the first instance. Hgweiirer, disposed of along with w.r>. No. l'2if6d¢.'3/f2iU0;--!i..: if = --anenquiry held by the Bangalore District CC-aste lV.erificati.i)n Committee, the petitioner had appeared and niade...a«'sworn. statement that he was the son of 0 to a Scheduled Tribe and that he did not have any doc.nirr;ents to vouch for this fact. After recording this gstateineiit, the Caste Verification Committee passed an order l8.0l.2006 directing the "l'ahasi.1dar, Bangalore North

---7fTalul< to take steps to cancel the caste certificate dated 29.07.1978, which certified that the petitioner belonged to 3 Kadukuruba community and the respondent to drop all enquiry proceedings and Jtake the_.'p'eti:t:ii;?ier: back. duty if he was suspended or removed to treat thedpetitpiioner as belonging to the Kuruba Qn _the:is'tr:eii'gtli:of the' order dated II.07.2O()7,aVwhichdvas they subiect. matter of the writ petition in W.P. removal of the petitioner was":al§_in vvithout hoiding an enquiry notice. The petitioner has the Head Office of the respondeht' at The operative portion of which rea<;is'to_state 'thatvvhein a candidate has been appointed and his _is'«.found to be false at a later stage, his services can .oriEy.ibeiferminated or dispensed with after holding a domestic ené"uiryi._An.ienquiry is essential and that there should be a time» 2 i:bou.r1d programme in completing the enquiry proceedings and a monitoring system should be introduced. It is therefore the petitioner's case that while paésing the order, wherein the petitioner has been removed from service there is.~«::o'_;adherenepe to the principles of natural justice.

It is contended that the pet_itionrerj;ha.yirig'--con.tinuedin service from the year 1978 fer-.a peri'cdhwhich"isjrriore than a years, and the petitioner in he was holding a post of Assistairit.I\/lgnage{§;.r/{kg/,¥.e'Spondent seeking to hold that the .vp¢titiQneif"§§ was stated to be in seeking '~seryice iisntherefore arbitrary and unjust, '- i i " 7.. It is pointed" out that the State Government has from V' 'time to.itirnei.._ivssued circulars on the issue that caste certificates ii ~.o"etainedi'_'h.y persons belongs to the castes such as Pariwara, Thia¥.a\">v.ara,4i Maleru, Kurtrba, Koli communities who have obtained caste certificates such as Nayaka, Maleru, i;Kadukuruba, Jenukuruba, Gonda, Rajugonda, Kolidhara that no action be taken against the said officials who are already in service and since there was room for confusion among the 3 authorities in respect of such Castes, which 2gl'€"'i{VVl1Q:\'l/':ll_.i'L3._\/ different in names in Vi6W of migratio-r1"»2i.ni:d,pichangeyin9 traditional occupation. These V'-dire'etions'=._iby' tli€§"sA--..p;f~"}:i2ate Government have been wholly...' ignored by'i.the§._'respondent».L' Company in proceeding. to dea.l---iyiith the petitionerubiy imposing a major penalty on the petihtioneri

8. It theijrespondent--Management did not take the i'deifect..i.'n the caste certificate for 18 years-- 'andiii'iii(3~.,:e;4,piIa.riatiori is offered as to the belated reaiisationionvythe part of respondent. The petitioner had not wfiiitfugliy hidden 'a-nymaterial and has produced his school i from Tamilnadn and honestly believed that he is a. Kfadukuruba, which his family and ancestors were. AA Therefore, there is no fault of the petitioner in his caste being i f'kne'yvn by some other name in the State of Karnataka and this is "being foisted against the petitioner, in making out a case that the petitioner has produced a falsg caste Certific-ate. 1 l Reliance is placed on the decision <)f_.t~he..Sti.;jre.ifrie com > in the case of M i'[in.d S/tarad Katwctre Static. of ﬁZ{Cl}f(Vl:i'{;.Yi'§f7&' -«~ AIR 2001 SCC 393 and on il_1e'----.caselofll";snjal§llA1'5»lcttier2iji(ttl L' And Another vs. ViZa.s'__S/0. G().1fl;;ft't7ff(i()v B()ka'cie._qndi Another -- (2009) zscc (L&S) .143.' c

9. T11€l"'.;£?iCuns;61 if'<'J'I'; tile] respondent having entered appearancc.__o1--1__t}.;e otlierihandj has flied statement of objection to contend that the:lj'p.eltitivoinei"has sought to challenge the order dated ~passed.:.l~*by the first respondent and also the dated llA.l0"l7;f£{}{}8 passed by the second respondent. The "described himself as belonging to a Scheduled Tribe produced a caste certificate issued by the AA"lfahsi.l'dar, Bangalore North Taluk dated 32.07.1977. He was i gjselected on the basis of the said caste certificate. A complaint " '-"having been received that the certificate ptoduced by the petiti.one.r was false. as he belongs to the Kuruba caste, the 5 matter was referred to the District Magistrate and confirmation of his caste certificate. The ifii:stiriz.ttll\/Ia'gVisttate . vide letter dated 25.07.2000 has c:1ect1;1réut_l Certificate produced by the pie_ti'ti.oneri's invalid, Tileivpctitionerii has challenged the said orderAVof-the.Di»strictMa~g.istrate in a writ petition in having been remanded to iiCotnrnittee with a direction of hearing. The Petitioner admijtitedii isuruba caste and not to Kadulcurubai committee invaiidated the caste cer;tific.ate issued.'iCo'nsequently, the petitioner was removed ,A ' from the :espondent--company.

« as the aklegations of the petitioner that there was v'iola'tiion of principles of natural justice and no enquiry 2 it haying" been held before removai of the petitioner, it is ifcontended that a domestic enquiry and the enquiry conducted by the caste verification committee is one and the same, and a 5 l3 finding having been arrived at against the petitioner, there was no need for duplication of the said proceedings the petitioner.

l1_. The allegation that the respopnderithhagiiifailedto talré'. action for a long period of tirneqto v_einture'~i.nto'p fraud, is unfair, as the responde__rit~._was made aAware~-.ot"'tl1e fraud' played by the petitiovner in pimﬂducedi"t~he*'V:false caste Certificate only after having' received __:Ln"arionyrnous letter and it is on that'-baslisiithiatthe vaction has been initiated. 4; C " The pietitioiner had "preferred an appeal under Article 7(2) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Bac'lc.wa:rd..Classes Reservation of Rule 1993, which was disirnissed.'as not maintainable in View of the fact that the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Community Reservation of Appointments, etc., Act 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is made applicable only to State Civil Services and Establishment in the public sectors 6 I6 basis of whatever p1"ima~facie evidence they are abIe«to~p:rod_.uce to support their claim that they beiong t0_--sa'ivd.::catc§forpy thereafter should be verified by the"iDis:%;rict' Mtagistrate" 'i'ii'tc_on verification that the claim w'asv'fa1se, thecertiticates~»s.ho:u1d be terminated. Thereforeﬁthe -the iﬁerrtralﬁiovernment states that the Districtiiiiﬁagisetrttté: be approached for seeking cannot be brought and the Rules but is pisiiiapiplicable throughout India.

Mereliiiy'; is a native of Karnataka, the Karnataka Acts 'and Rules cannot be pressed into service, since is in a public sector and not under the State " . _Gover11ri1€:nt;.i"Vv' v V i .. It is in this background that the respondent .approached the Deputy Commissioner and not under the 1990 __Act and its Rules. Hence, the petitioners appeal under the Act g and Rules was disrnisse-d as not rnaintainable bythe' Authority.

l5. The question whether ;_the:' Caste' Committee has jurisdiction"ito'--._Veonsider thesis/a»li'd~ityV of the"

certificate issued by the respondentfor the purposes of the appointment in the respon'cie'n_t_f'eompan},t;ii*s.Vnecessarily to be held in favoupref the The Counsel would submit that re_lianCe'«.._opn"-Zlefiplfnd Can be distinguished as not being appliieablpei t,oi'i'the"--piresent case on hand. The context therein -in ~_reiatio.n" to reservation to admission of ediieati_o1iai instiitut-i-ens and not for appointment in service. In eas-e the petitioner had obtained a false caste Certiﬁcvateearly as in 1977 for the purpose of securing Apemplicsvyzinent in the respondent-company and the petitioner ii f's'ee.l{ing to take shelter under the Government order or judgment "of the Supreme Court is not tenable.

3 38

16. Insofar as the President's notification underiiimticle 343, wherein lists of Scheduled Castes were in Karnataka has been issued, Kadukuruba has..iibeen~.i.:listedVi'in. Scheduled Tribe of Karnataka. Kuruba in._gene:ralr.is"not listedvras Scheduled Tribes. However, Kn-ruba in..Ccorg*l5is.tri<:,tHa1one is' found in the Scheduled __Tribes " T i I It has been obseryed by that the burden of proving his st;;::~.is_s that he b'é1ogag$ "toa--'S:cheduled Tribie is on the person'wt1o"éiiain1silit,:_:'ﬁagiparently, the petition belongs to Kuruba comiritinity but does not hail from Coorg District. does iinot-«----be-long to Kadukuruba caste. In these _ 'ci.r_curns«t_ancieS.ai iigthe caste certiﬁcate issued by authorities referred. toﬂyabizove is invalid and the conclusion held by the ADeputy._Commissioner of Bangalore District is tenable.

17. In the light of the above contentions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had continued in service for over 25 years. The respondents having woken up to the fact that the 19 petitioner had produced a certificate eiaiming when he in fact could not be considered a Katiui<f_tir1i'ba 'and__ was a Kuruba and did not figure in'~_the;' issued iinder'ii'Aftic:ie 343 naming the petitioiierii .as"-._KaduL'urubaiiv.as'5_jone. 'of the' Scheduled Tribes of" sand' iiiavinvg initiated proceedings in seekingiiitoii service on account of the certi§f'ic'ate_-. and without entering whether the .1990 Act and View of the respondent --

Compiany undertaking.

~ On principle the judgment of the Supreme Court in the .. siiigampof Mahamszra vs. Milind And Others W [AR 2001 _ it pertains to admission of a Scheduled Tribe candidate"on the ground of there being a defective certificate .. it woiﬂdiisquareiy be applicable to the present case on hand.

18. The further circumstance as observed by the H Supreme Court in the case ogPzmjab National Bank vs. Vilas 20 S/o. Govirtdrao Bokade and Another ~« (2009) 2 SCC{L_gS_';S) I43 supra while placing reliance on the Militt.d's case, t%ie'~Si;p:ietne Court has held at para No.19 as under -

"I 9. After referring to thef]H9l50' O_ra'er.; corzsiderirtg a ntimber questions, ultimately lift.

came to the c'-()itc.'ltt.sir%ii,uthat stic.'il_'_statti§s (If Scheduled Trib'e;:.'_et;.»uld hnot skiottferred those who were belr)ngin5gt_to'VHalb_a'jKo.sh_I'i7_. caste. The decision.--.iri»thaz; beVita';f Ifet2.a'_e.re(l the Division behehV'h'ofVth:e«Bo-rribay High Court was set aside. the circumstances that the re.s,o'on_deiat'V'--wli¢:2 become a doctor about 15 E__i{e.7rts back' W.(I.Iéid be losing his status, the Supreme .. rnade the aforementionea.' observation. 1 it was tried' to be suggested before its the obsermcttiorts were applicable to that z t.grar'tic'ular ease and the facts therein. Ordinarily we wcmld have been persuaded to accept the argument. However, fortanately_for the respondent this observation was later on. relied upon by this Court in another decision in. Civil Appeal No.3375 of 2000 [arising out of SLP(C) No.6524 of 1988] % decided on 12.12.2000 wherein th.is Ctiiirt observed.' 0 "The appellant having belonged to Koshiti 0" V claimed to be included in the Schedaie~.:,'.--._]fribelofA Halba and obtained an ap[2ointnier'tti"'aisi Engineer. When his appointnienAt"i«ya.s "to terminated on the basis' he Haiti. not Scheduled Tribe by the VA(.'*£?tf€w'"i'£ft?..Ci'I1--I a i«t2rvitApetiiti()n was filed ehallenging that order which wasAa.llo_n2ea'i._lThatiitirdeitj questioned in thi.v;"apf2eal Theiqi'aestion.s--0'arising in this case Kxare I-';:v:€>"l"£i'H"(z>'llr"AS'l'.'()n in State of Maharastra ltfilindsaii-ti'«ii/*a;s,:_§c):"'rc) be allowed, however, the . _ beneﬁts deriveid. tlillhlnow shall be available to the E>_ai)pellanitli"to-....rhe effect that his appointment as Engineer shall stand protected but no 33 l"j'i,iii%ther;"iihe appeal is disposed ofaceordingly. 0 x in the instant case, the petitioner not having any Avsltibstantial advantage on account of his status as a Scheduled iiffibﬁ candidate and as the petitioner contends that he has secured promotions in ciimbgg up the ladcier of his career by virtue of his merit and seniority which is not hei__n"g"dispi.ite:iV_l'by the respondent--company, and the petitioner.'Eiein-§_coiiti1';i,1ec§in. ernpioyrnent notwithstanding the di's.cre.tian';cy'ior i;ntEiri1iit'y..fo'Lind in the caste certificate and inithe-...lighti'ofthe_ St.ate'i.__G'ew:;rnmenti ii having issued orders respeet--:)ii:..s_i~rnilarEy hpiaeetl candidates to which the Act applietzlllltllat ought not to be penalised if they were the ﬁf:1.,I1$ii'i,§lI1\i?E1ii(}i caste certiﬁcate at a _remo;[tel to the petitioner, though thereis the Act would apply to the petitioner or not. " 'l V V _ 'A_ec.oi'tiir1--giy, the petition is allowed. Annexure -- A and B._are vqiiashend. The petitioner shall be continued in services AA whilevhe shall not be enabled to take any advantage of his caste Q as Kuruba candidate and for all purposes shaE1_b_é"tr€:'2;t€§gi. General Merit candidate.

_

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court