Bangalore District Court
Ms.Rashi E vs The Karnataka State Secondary on 30 September, 2020
43 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
Government of
Karnataka
Form No.9 IN THE COURT OF XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT AT
[Civil] Title Sheet
for Judgement BENGALURU (CCH-14)
in Suits
Present: Sri. C.D. KAROSHI, B.A., LL.M.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-13)
C/c XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2020.
O.S.1775/2020
Plaintiffs: 1. Ms.Rashi E,
D/o. Sri.Bhaskar E,
Aged about 18 years.
2. Sri.Bhaskar E,
S/o. Late Sri.Yamanappa,
Aged about 70 years.
3. Smt.Uma,
W/o. Sri.Bhaskar E,
Aged about 42 years.
All are r/at No.9,
Ravikaran Nilaya, Behind
Raghavendra Hospital,
K.G.Layout, T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru-57.
(Sri.C.R.Mahendra Gowda, Adv)
- VS -
Defendants: 1. The Karnataka State Secondary
Education Board,
Rep. by its Secretary,
6th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-560 003.
2 O.S.No.1775/2020
2. Department of Pre-University
Education, Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
18th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-560 003.
3. St. Ann's High School,
Rep. by its Head Master,
Hatti Village, Lingasgur Tluk,
Raichur Dt.- 584115.
4. M/s. Jyothi Nivas College,
Rep. by its Principal,
Hosur Road, 5th Block,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-95.
(Smt.Kiran Pradeep, IV Add. Dist.
Govt. Pleader for D1 and D2
D3 and D4 - Exparte)
***
Date of institution of the Suit : 05.03.2020.
Declaration &
Nature of the Suit :
Mandatory Injunction.
Date of commencement of 18.09.2020.
:
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment 30.09.2020
:
was pronounced
Total Duration Year Months Days
:
00 06 25
(C.D. KAROSHI)
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
3 O.S.No.1775/2020
-: J U D G E M E N T :-
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the
defendants for the relief of declaration and mandatory
injunction.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, the 1st plaintiff is the daughter of the plaintiff
Nos.2 and 3, she is pursuing her 2nd year PUC in the 4th
defendant college. She is studied her high school
education in the school of defendant No.3 at Hutti, Raichur
District. The plaintiffs are the residents of Chincharki
Village, Kavitala Hobli, Sirvar Taluk, Raichur District, but
plaintiffs are residing in Bengaluru since 2018 and also
permanently residing for the purpose of education of their
children. The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 being the parents also
Hindu by religion and belongs to Madiga - schedule caste.
The marriage of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 performed in
accordance with the rites and customs prevailed in their
community/caste in the year 1998. Further it is averred
that, the plaintiffs and their relatives also belong to
scheduled caste and follow the practices prevailing in their
community. Further it is averred that for a brief period,
the parents of the 1st plaintiff were practicing Christianity
during the year 1999-2000, as such while joining the
school, the religion of the 1st plaintiff mentioned as
Christian and no caste is mentioned against her name.
Further though the plaintiffs and their family members
4 O.S.No.1775/2020
were practicing Christianity, but they had not renounced
Hinduism or given up practices of their caste and their
social belongingness to the caste. The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3
continued to be the people belonging to scheduled caste
and the fellow caste members had not rejected them from
their caste structure. The plaintiffs have produced caste
certificate issued by the concerned authorities mentioning
that, they belonging to scheduled caste, accordingly they
stopped following Christianity since the year 2006 and
thereafter marriage and other ceremonies are performed
according to the customs prevailed among the caste
keeping intact the caste identity though the members may
also follow Christianity, but fact of mentioning Christianity
as the religion of the 1st plaintiff in the school certificates,
it gone unnoticed and the plaintiffs learnt about the same
during the month of December-2019. Immediately having
realised the said mistake, the plaintiffs approached the 4th
defendant and requested to mention that she belongs to
schedule caste, but their request was rejected in view of
the fact that, school records mention Christian as the
religion of the 1st plaintiff. Again the 2nd plaintiff
approached the 3rd defendant school and the 1st
defendant board to have the caste as scheduled caste in
her records, as the concerned authorities have already
issued necessary certificates, but the defendant Nos.1 and
3 have also refused to rectify the same, accordingly the
plaintiffs have filed the present suit. Cause of action arose
in the month of December-2019 and when the 2nd plaintiff
5 O.S.No.1775/2020
approached the defendant No.4 College with a request to
rectify the records of the 1st plaintiff regarding her caste
and when they refused and on subsequent dates. On these
grounds, prayed for decreeing the suit.
3. Records reveal that, on receipt of suit
summons, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through
the learned IV ADGP and filed written statement
contending that, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is berupt on
merits, lacks bonafide and requires to be dismissed. There
is no cause of action against the defendants and even
otherwise, it is created for the purpose of unduly harassing
the Government machinery. The allegations made against
the defendant authority are all false and baseless and the
plaintiffs be put to strict proof of the same. The suit of the
plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
This Court has no jurisdiction to declare the caste of the
plaintiff in view of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court and
as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of
existence of specific alternative Forum. The suit is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs have
intentionally not arrayed the concerned BEO and
jurisdictional DDPI as parties to the suit. The plaintiffs
have also not complied the mandatory provisions under
Order 27 Rule 5-A of CPC and not made the State
Government as party to the suit. On these grounds also
the suit is not maintainable. Consequential relief as
sought by the plaintiffs is barred under Limitation Act as
6 O.S.No.1775/2020
the same is filed after lapse of considerable time. If there is
any mistake in the entries, then the plaintiffs could have
rectified in the records at initial stage only. The averments
made in the plaint para-3 to 13 are all false and not within
the knowledge of these defendants. The particulars
furnished by the parents of the student which were
supported by the documents will be entered in the school
record during the admission to 1st standard in the primary
school and the same will be continued and reflected in the
higher school educational records, as such there is no fault
of the defendants in the above case. There is no provision
to change name of the caste of the student in the school
records. No cause of action arose to file this suit. On
these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit with heavy
exemplary cost.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court
has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that 1st plaintiff
belongs to Scheduled Caste 'Madiga' ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the
relief of mandatory injunction as sought
for ?
3. Whether suit of the plaintiffs in the present
form is maintainable ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief
as sought for?
5. What order or decree?
7 O.S.No.1775/2020
5. In order to prove their case, the 2nd plaintiff
examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents
at Ex.P.1 to 8. The plaintiff No.3 examined herself as PW.2
and got marked the document at Ex.P.9. The plaintiffs also
examined a witness as PW.3 and got marked the
documents Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.15. Records reveal that,
initially the suit was filed by the natural guardian/father of
the 1st plaintiff Ms.Rashi E as she was minor as on the
date of filing the suit, but in the meanwhile she attained
majority and got discharged the guardianship of her father
and examined herself as PW.4 and identified Ex.P.5 Caste
Certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar. Records
reveal that, in view of Covid-19 Pandemic and as requested
by the counsels, this Court has recorded entire evidence of
PWs.1 to 4 through Video Conference. No oral or
documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the
defendants.
6. Heard the arguments physically and perused the
material on record. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs
relied on decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 939. The
learned IV ADGP relied on decisions in (1997) 3 SCC 542,
the judgment in the case of Dharmanna Vs D.C. dated
14.02.2014, copy of the order in RSA No.155/15 dated
29.11.2016, (2001) 1 KLJ 36 and copy of Government
Circulars dated 06.09.2017 and 20.04.2020.
8 O.S.No.1775/2020
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : Does not survive for
consideration,
Issue Nos.2 to 4 : In the negative
Issue No.5 : As per final order
for the following:
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. ISSUE NOS.1 TO 3 :- I take these issues
altogether for my discussion, as the facts overlap and for
the sake of convenience.
9. It is to be noticed that, initially the above
numbered suit was being filed by the natural guardian i.e.,
the father of the 1st plaintiff, but later on, the plaintiff
attained the majority and got discharged the guardianship
of her father with permission to prosecute the suit
independently. Admittedly the plaintiffs have filed the
above numbered suit for the relief of declaration to declare
that the plaintiff No.1 Ms.Rashi E belongs to Madiga -
scheduled caste and consequential relief of mandatory
injunction to get rectified her school record as caste of the
1st plaintiff is Madiga. In this regard, the plaintiff Nos.2
and 3 filed their affidavits in lieu of their oral evidence,
examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 through V.C. stating that,
the 1st plaintiff daughter and themselves are Hindus by
religion and belong to Madiga - Scheduled Caste and also
following practices prevailing in their community. Further
state that, for a brief period, they were practicing
9 O.S.No.1775/2020
Christianity in the year 1999-2000, accordingly at the time
of getting admission of their daughter into the school, the
religion mentioned as Christian and no caste has been
mentioned as against her name. Further state that, they
stopped following of the religion Christianity since from the
year 2006 and now following Hinduism and concerned
authority have also issued caste certificates stating that
they belong to scheduled caste only, but the fact of wrong
mention of religion as Christianity in the School records
relating to the 1st plaintiff-daughter had gone unnoticed
and it came to know in the month of December-2019,
accordingly they approached the defendants with a request
to rectify the same in her school records, but they did not
turn up. Accordingly, they filed the suit.
10. So also PW.3 who is none other than one of the
relatives of the plaintiffs has also deposed before this Court
through V.C. and got marked the documents at Ex.P.10 to
Ex.P.15 by supporting the case of the plaintiffs stating
that, his brother-in-law and family members are
completely following the Hinduism and they belong to
scheduled caste Madiga and the same is accepted in their
community since 2006.
11. So also the 1st plaintiff being the daughter of
the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 also filed an affidavit in lieu of her
oral evidence, examined herself as PW.4 through V.C.
stating that, her father was following Christianity during
the year 2000 and thereafter he stopped it and now
10 O.S.No.1775/2020
following only Hinduism. Further states that, her parents
and all other relatives are Hindus by religion and belonging
to Madiga community, accordingly she has obtained caste
certificate from the concerned authority along with other
relatives, but wrong mention of her caste as Christian in
her school records gone unnoticed by oversight though
they belong to the scheduled caste. On these grounds,
they pray for decreeing the suit.
12. During the course of cross-examination of
PWs.1 to 4, the learned IV ADGP who appeared for
defendant Nos.1 and 2 tried to elicit that, the defendants
have entered caste of the plaintiff No.1 as Christian in her
school records as per the information given by the parents
only and there is no fault on the part of the defendants,
they denied as false. Further when a suggestion was put to
the witnesses that, though they belong to Christian
community, but in order to get Government facility only
they are deposing falsely by creating Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and
Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8 by furnishing false information for the
purpose of suit only, they denied as false. Further they
admit that, they have neither made the concerned BEO or
DDPI as parties to the suit nor approached the District
Caste Verification Committee, but they denied the
suggestion that, no cause of action arose to file the present
suit and filed unnecessarily.
13. It is worth to note that, though the defendants
have filed written statement and also seriously challenged
11 O.S.No.1775/2020
the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, but did not step into the
witness box. In such circumstances this court has to
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on
record only.
14. It is the case of the plaintiffs as argued by their
counsel that though father of the plaintiff No.1 was
following Christianity in the year 2000, but plaintiff No.1
born in the year 2002 and plaintiffs have not completely
renounced the Hinduism, accordingly when they
approached the defendants and requested to rectify the
caste of the plaintiff No.1 in her school records as Madiga -
Scheduled Caste instead of Christian as per Ex.P.5 Caste
Certificate, but they did not comply.
15. Per contra, it is the case of the defendant Nos.1
and 2 as argued by the learned IV ADGP that, since
plaintiffs have neither made the concerned BEO and DDPI
as well as the state Govt. as party to the suit nor
approached the concerned authority as per the said
notifications or issued prior notice to the defendants , as
such in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
and our Hon'ble High Court as well as Karnataka
Government Circulars referred supra suit of the plaintiffs
is not maintainable and without jurisdiction.
16. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of T.N. and others Vs. A.Guruswamy -
(1997) 3 SCC 542 Point-A that, "Constitution of India -
12 O.S.No.1775/2020
Arts.341, 342 and 366 (24) and (25) - Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes - Whether a particular community is
a SC or ST - Forum competent to decide - Presidential
declaration under Arts. 341 and 342 held, conclusive albeit
subject to amendment by Parliament - Hence, jurisdiction
of civil court to decide the said question impliedly ousted -
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.9".
17. Further, in Para-3 of the judgment observed
that: By operation of Section 9 of CPC, a suit of civil
nature cognizance of which is expressly or by implication
excluded cannot be tried by any Civil Court.
18. The relevant paragraphs of the Karnataka
Government latest Notification-ಸಸಂಖಖಖ್ಯೆ ಸ4(4) ಕಕ.ದಕ.ವ.ಜಕ.ತ.ಪ-
08/2019-20 dated 20/04/2020 relied by the learned
ADGP reads as under:-
ಸಸುತಖತತತ್ತೋಲಖ ಸಸಂಖಖಖ್ಯೆಖ್ಯೆಃ ಸಕಇ 93 ಎಸ್ಎಡಿ 2017 ದಿನನಸಂಕಖ್ಯೆಃ
06-09-2017 ರ ಕಸಂಡಿಕಖ (3) ರಲಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕಖಳಕಸಂಡಸಂತಖ ಇರಸುತತದಖ.
ಮನನಖ್ಯೆ ಸರತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಚಚ್ಚ ನನಖ್ಯೆಯಲಯದ ತತ್ತೋರರರ್ವೋಗಳಸಂತಖ ಸಿವಿಲ್
ನನಖ್ಯೆಯಲಯಗಳಿಗಖ ಜನತಗಳ ಬಗಖಗ್ಗೆ ನಿರರ್ವೋರಿಸಸುವ ಅಧಿಕನರ ಇಲಲ್ಲಿದಖತ್ತೋ
ಇರಸುವರದರಿಸಂದ, ಸಿವಿಲ್ ನನಖ್ಯೆಯನಲಯಗಳಳು ಶನಲನ ದನಖಲನತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ
ಜನತ ಬದಲವನವಣಖ ಬಗಖಗ್ಗೆ ನಿತ್ತೋಡಿದ ಆದಖತ್ತೋಶಗಳನಸುನ್ನು ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಇಲನಖಖಯಸು
ಉನನ್ನುತ ನನಖ್ಯೆಯನಲಯಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತೋಲಲ್ಮನವಿ ಸಲಲ್ಲಿಸಿ, ಸತಕತ ಆದಖತ್ತೋಶಗಳನಸುನ್ನು
ರಡಖಯಬಹಸುದಸು. ಶನಲನ ದನಖಲಖಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ತರರಪ್ಪು ಜನತ ನಮತದನಗಿದದ್ದರಖ
ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಇಲನಖಖಯಸು ಅದನಸುನ್ನು ಸರಿರಡಿಸಬಖತ್ತೋಕನದಲಲ್ಲಿ ಸಸಂಬಸಂರರಟಟ
ಅರರ್ವೋದನರರಸು ಮೊದಲಸು ಜನತ ರಪ್ರಮನಣ ರತಪ್ರ ರಡಯಬಖತ್ತೋಕನಗಿದಖ ಮತಸುತ
13 O.S.No.1775/2020
ಅದರ ಆಧನರದ ಮತ್ತೋಲಖ ಮಸುಸಂದಿನ ಕಪ್ರಮ ಜರಸುಗಿಸಬಹಸುದಸು.
ತಹಶಿತ್ತೋಲನದ್ದರರಸು ನಿತ್ತೋಡಿದ ಜನತ ರಪ್ರಮನಣ ರತಪ್ರದಲಲ್ಲಿ ಸಸಂಶಯಗಳಿದದ್ದರಖ
ಅಥವನ ಅದರಿಸಂದ ಬನಧಿತರನದವರಸು ಮತ್ತೋಸಲನತ ಕನಯದ್ದ 1990 ಕಲಸಂ
4(ಬ) ರಡಿಯಲಲ್ಲಿ ಕಸಂದನಯ ಇಲನಖಖಯ ಉರವಿಭನಗನಧಿಕನರಿಗಳಿಗಖ
ಮತ್ತೋಲಲ್ಮನವಿ ಸಲಲ್ಲಿಸಬಹಸುದಸು. ಶನಲನ ದನಖಲನತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ
ಮಸುಖಖತಖ್ಯೆತ್ತೋಪನಧನಖ್ಯೆಯರಸು ಯನವರದಖತ್ತೋ ವಿಚನರಣಖ ಇಲಲ್ಲಿದಖ ಪತ್ತೋಷಕರಸು ನಿತ್ತೋಡಿದ
ಮನಹಿತ ಮತ್ತೋಲಖ ಜನತಗಳನಸುನ್ನು ನಮತದಿಸಿರಸುತನತರಖ. ಆದದ್ದರಿಸಂದ ಶನಲನ
ದನಖಲನತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ನಮತದಿಸಿರಸುವ ಜನತಯತ್ತೋ ನಖನೈಜ ಜನತ ಎಸಂದಸು
ರರಿಗಣಿಸಲಸು ಸನರಖ್ಯೆವನಗಸುವರದಿಲಲ್ಲಿ.
ಆದದ್ದರಿಸಂದ ಶನಲನ ದನಖಲನತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ತರರಪ್ಪು ಜನತ ನಮತದನಗಿದದ್ದಲಲ್ಲಿ
ಸಸಂಬಸಂರರಟಟ ಅರರ್ವೋದನರರಸು ಮೊದಲಸು ಜನತ ರಪ್ರಮನಣ ರತಪ್ರ ರಡಖದಸು
ಸಸಂಬಸಂಧಿಸಿದ ಶನಲನ ಮಸುಖಖ್ಯೆಸಸ್ಥರಿಗಖ ಅರರ್ವೋ ಸಲಲ್ಲಿಸಲಸು ತಳಿಸಸುವರದಸು ಹನಗತ
ಸದರಿ ಜನತ ರಪ್ರಮನಣ ರತಪ್ರದ ಆಧನರದ ಮತ್ತೋಲಖ ಶನಲನ ದನಖಲನತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ
ಜನತ ತದಸುದ್ದರಡಿ ಮನಡಲಸು ಮಸುಖಖ್ಯೆಶಿಕ್ಷಕರಸು ಸಸಂಬಸಂಧಿಸಿದ ಕಖತ್ತೋತಪ್ರ
ಶಿಕ್ಷಣನಧಿಕನರಿಗಳ ಮಸುಖನಸಂತರ ಸಸಂಬಸಂಧಿಸಿದ ಉರನಿದಖತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಶಕರಸು
(ಆಡಳಿತ) ಇವರಸುಗಳಿಗಖ ರಪ್ರಸನತವನಖ ಸಲಲ್ಲಿಸಸುವರದಸು, ಉರನಿದಖತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಶಕರಸು
(ಆಡಳಿತ) ರವರಸು ರಪ್ರಸನತವನಖಯನಸುನ್ನು ಸಸುತಖತತತ್ತೋಲಖಯಸಂತಖ ರರಿಶಿತ್ತೋಲಸಿ,
ದನಖಲಖಗಳಳು ಸರಿ ಇದದ್ದರಖ ಜನತ ತದಸುದ್ದರಡಿ ಮನಡಲಸು ಆದಖತ್ತೋಶ ನಿತ್ತೋಡಸುವರದಸು.
ಸದರಿ ಆದಖತ್ತೋಶದಸಂತಖ ತದಸುದ್ದರಡಿಯನದ ನಸಂತರ ಶನಲಖಯ ದನಖಲನತ
ವಹಿಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ಉರನಿದಖತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಶಕರಸು (ಆಡಳಿತ) ಇವರಸು ದದೃಢತ್ತೋಕರಿಸಸುವರದಸು. ಈ
ಸತಚನಖಗಳಸಂತಖ ಕಪ್ರಮವಹಿಸಲಸು ರನಜಖ್ಯೆದ ಎಲನಲ್ಲಿ ರಲನಲ್ಲಿ ಉರನಿದಖತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಶಕರಸು
(ಆಡಳಿತ), ಸನವರ್ವೋಜನಿಕ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಇಲನಖಖ ಮತಸುತ ರನಜಖ್ಯೆದ ಎಲನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಖತ್ತೋತಪ್ರ
ಶಿಕ್ಷಣನಧಿಕನರಿಗಳಳು, ಸನವರ್ವೋಜನಿಕ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಇಲನಖಖ, ಇವರಿಗಖ ತಳಿಸಿದಖ.
So on careful perusal of the aforesaid notification
now it is clear that even otherwise in view of the decisions
of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and our Hon'ble High
Court, Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to determine or
14 O.S.No.1775/2020
declare caste of a person/student. Further, if the civil court
has already declared such caste, then the education
department has to challenge it before the Appellate courts.
In case of wrong mention of caste in the school records,
the concerned applicant has to get caste certificate from
the Tahsildar and if found any doubts or aggrieved by the
provisions of Karnataka SC/ST and other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc) Act 1990 he has
to file appeal before the Asst. Commissioner.
19. Further in last para of the notification it is
stated that if there is a mistake or wrong mention of caste
in school records then the concerned applicant has to get
the caste certificate from the Tahsildar and then to move
an application before the concerned school, in turn the
Head Master of the said school has to forward the same
along with documents to DDPI (Admin) through concerned
BEO, thereafter he has to pass necessary orders by
certifying the same so as to rectify the school records
pertain to wrong mention of caste belongs to the applicant.
20. In view of my discussion made supra, in the case
on hand it is evident from the perusal of Ex.P 5 to 7 that
the plaintiffs have already obtained Form-D/Caste
Certificates from the office of concerned Tahsildar, as such
for the aforesaid reasons again this Court cannot decide
the said question as the same is barred under Section 9 of
CPC. So though PW.4 has relied on evidence of Pws.1 to 3
along with Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.15, but in the circumstances of
15 O.S.No.1775/2020
the case, the said oral and documentary evidence is not
helpful to the case of the plaintiff No.1. As such at this
stage issue No.1 regarding declaration of caste does not
survive for consideration.
21. It may be noted that, though it was urged on
behalf of the plaintiffs that before filing the suit they
approached the concerned authorities and they did not
turn up, but in order to substantiate their contention the
plaintiffs have neither produced any endorsement from the
office of concerned BEO, DDPI, Social Welfare Department,
Caste Verification Committee constituted under the
provisions of Karnataka SC/ST and other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc) Act 1990 or
Asst. Commissioner before this Court for having
approached the said authorities or challenged the wrong
entries regarding her religion/caste made in Ex.P.4 as
Christian by the school authority. It is to be noticed that,
as rightly urged by the other side, plaintiffs have neither
issued prior statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC
against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 nor arrayed the
concerned BEO, DDPI and the state Govt. as parties to the
suit as observed in the decision (2001) 1 KLJ 36 referred
supra except filing IA No. 1 before this Court or took steps
on this aspect subsequently.
22. This being the fact without approaching proper
authorities, the plaintiffs cannot file a suit before the Civil
Court seeking declaration or mandatory injunction to
16 O.S.No.1775/2020
rectify the school records pertains to her caste by the
defendants as the same is not maintainable in view of
Section 9 of CPC.
23. In this regard, our Hon'ble High Court by
referring the decision rendered in ILR 2014 KAR 5389 has
observed in RSA No.155/2015 dt. 29/11/2016 referred by
the learned ADGP that, even otherwise for any corrections
in the documents pertaining to the school records like
marks card or transfer certificate pertaining to the plaintiff,
plaintiff has to approach the competent authority for
rectification or correction of the said documents including
caste certificate or income certificate etc., and not the civil
court, which can correct the school records.
24. Therefore, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, now it is clear that, as per the
provisions of Karnataka SC/ST and other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc) Act 1990 no
civil courts shall have jurisdiction in respect of any order
passed by any officer or authority under this Act and no
stay or injunction shall be granted by a court in respect of
any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority
under this Act in pursuance of any power conferred by or
under this Act. In such circumstances, at the best
plaintiffs could have approached the competent authorities
before filing suit and now also it is left to the plaintiffs to
approach the said authorities for their remedies. For these
reasons, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
17 O.S.No.1775/2020
plaintiffs do not have weight and cannot be accepted. On
the other hand arguments advanced by the learned IV
ADGP holds good. Hence, Issue No.1 does not survive for
consideration and I answer Issue Nos.2 and 3 are in the
"negative".
25. ISSUE NO.4:- In view of my discussion made
supra while dealing with Issue Nos.1 to 3, suit of the
plaintiffs is liable to dismissed without cost. Hence, I
answer Issue No.4 in the "negative".
26. ISSUE NO.5 :- For the foregoing reasons, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed, with liberty to approach the concerned authorities as per Karnataka Government Notification-ಸಸಂಖಖಖ್ಯೆ ಸ4(4) ಕಕ.ದಕ. ವ.ಜಕ.ತ.ಪ-08/2019-20 dated 20/04/2020.
No order as to cost.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
*** [ Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on 30 th day of September 2020 ] [ C.D. KAROSHI ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/C XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU.
18 O.S.No.1775/2020A NN E X U R E List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff :
PW.1 Sri.Bhaskar E. PW.2 Smt.Uma. PW.3 Sri.Kashappa. PW.4 Ms.Rashi E.
List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff :
Ex.P1 to 3 Study Certificates of plaintiff No.1. Ex.P4 Xerox copy of transfer certificate of plaintiff No.1.
Ex.P5 to 7 Caste certificates of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. Ex.P8 10 photographs of family members of PW.1 along with CD.
Ex.P9 Transfer certificate issued by the Govt.
Higher Primary School of plaintiff No.3. Ex.P10 Caste Certificate of Mr.Lingappa, elder brother of PW.3.
Ex.P11 Caste certificate of Mr.Yankanna, younger brother of PW.3.
Ex.P12 Caste certificate of Mr.Mounesh, son of PW.3.
Ex.P.13 Caste certificate of Smt.Adamma, wife of PW.3.
Ex.P.14 Caste certificate of Mr.Chandrashekar S/o. Ningappa, PW.3 brother's son. Ex.P.15 Xerox copy of caste certificate of PW.3. 19 O.S.No.1775/2020 List of documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
[ C.D. KAROSHI ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/C XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU.