Karnataka High Court
Suryakantha Rao vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 28 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)KARLJ498
ORDER Chandrashekaraiah, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 23-1-2002 passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No, MSC. CR. 47/2001-02 aide Annexure-G yetting aside the order of the Tahsiidar under which, the Tahsiidar rejected the complaint filed by the respondent 4 by refusing to recall the caste certificate issued earlier to the petitioner,
2. The order passed by the Tahsildar has been questioned by the respondent 4 by way of an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes Observation of Appointments, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 1997.
3. In the instant case, the petitioner contested for election to the post of "Councilor" to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palika from Ward No. 92 and got elected also. This election, i am told is the subject-matter of the Election Petition No. 25 of 2001. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent had approached the Tahsildar to recall the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. The said request has been turned down by the Tahsildar. As against this refusal to recall the caste certificate issued to petitioner, the 4th respondent has filed an appeal bearing No. MSC. CR. 47/2001-02. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the Tahsildar issuing a caste certificate to the petitioner. This order, that has been questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under the said enactment is not maintainable in law.
4. The object of said enactment i.e., the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 is to provide for the reservation of appointment or posts in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes in the State Civil Services and establishments in the Public Sector and in admission to Universities and to the Educational Institutions established or maintained or aided by the State Government, whereas in the instant case, the caste certificate that was issued by the Tahsildar is not to secure appointment in any of the Government Local Bodies/Boards or Universities. If that is so, an appeal under this Act challenging the caste certificate which has been issued for the purpose of contesting in the election is not maintainable in law. Therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner is without jurisdiction.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting 4th respondent submits that if the order of the Assistant Commissioner is held to be without jurisdiction, this Court may direct the Tahsildar to reconsider the matter afresh after affording opportunities to both the parties. There is no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the Tahsildar had already passed an order refusing to recall the caste certificate already issued to the petitioner. But it is still open for the petitioner to challenge the said order before the appropriate Forum. If that is so, there is no need for this Court to issue any direction to Tahsildar to reconsider his order once again. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed.