Karnataka High Court
Dharmanna S/O. Melagineppa Sharegar vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 February, 2014
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
RSA No.816/2006 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
DHARMANNA S/O MELAGINEPPA SHAREGAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O KOUJALAGI, TQ.GOKAK-591307.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELGAUM - 590001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
CHIKKODI-591427.
3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
MUDALAGI-591358.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
BELGAUM - 590001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANDKUMAR NAVALGIMATH, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2005
PASSED IN R.A.No.157/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) GOKAK, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
2
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2004
PASSED IN O.S.No.65/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.), & JMFC, GOKAK.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff of an original suit bearing O.S.No.65/2004 is before this Court, as he is aggrieved by the divergent findings passed in R.A.No.157/2005, which was pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak. Respondents herein were the defendants in the said suit and the appellant was the plaintiff in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court.
2. Plaintiff was aged about 19 years when the suit was filed in the year 2004 for the relief of declaration to the effect that he belongs to "Hindu Sheregar" caste and for consequently direction to the defendants to delete his caste which is mentioned as "Hindu Iruliga" and in place to include "Hindu Sheregar" and for such other consequential reliefs. 3 Defendant No.3-Block Education Officer, Mudaligi filed a detailed written statement denying all the averments. According to defendant No.3, school authorities had entered the caste of the plaintiff as per the information furnished by the parents of the plaintiff at the time of admission and it has a probative value. According to defendant No.3, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature, unless all the remedies available under law are exhausted. With these pleadings, a request had been made to dismiss the suit.
3. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues came to be framed.
i) Whether the plaintiff proves that in his school records his caste is wrongly entered as Hindu-
Iruliga instead of Hindi-Sheregar?
ii) Whether the defendants prove that school authorities have entered the caste of the plaintiff 4 as per the information furnished by the father of the plaintiff while taking admission to the school?
iii) Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and sufficient?
iv) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential direction as prayed?
vi) What decree or order?
4. Plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and 14 exhibits have been got marked on his behalf. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants. Ultimately suit came to be decreed as prayed for and plaintiff was declared as a person belonging to "Hindu Sheregar" caste and necessary direction is issued to the authorities to delete the caste "Hindu Iruliga"
and in place to include the word "Hindu Sheregar".
5. The considered judgment dated 12.03.2004 came to be questioned by the appellant by filing a regular appeal 5 under Section 96 of CPC before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak in R.A.No.157/2005. After hearing the arguments and perusing the grounds urged in the appeal memo, learned Judge of the first appellate Court has framed the following 3 points for consideration.
i) Whether the plaintiff has shown that he belongs to 'Hindu Sheregar' caste and the same is wrongly entered in his school records as 'Hindu Iruliga'?
ii) Whether the findings of the trial Court are illegal, erroneous, capricious or perverse and require the interference?
iii) What order?
6. Ultimately, it is held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature for declaration of the caste. Consequently, suit is dismissed. It is this divergent judgment dated 17.12.2005 which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. 6
7. My learned predecessor has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration "Whether a Civil suit is maintainable for a declaration that the plaintiff belongs to a particular caste?
8. When the learned counsel for the appellant was submitting his arguments, a question was put to him by the Court to know as to whether the caste that is sought to be inserted in the school records would be a backward caste or Scheduled Caste of Scheduled Tribe, learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that "Hindu Sheregar" caste would come within the ambit of Scheduled Tribes. Admittedly, "Hindu Sheregar" comes within the purview of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The caste "Hindu Iruliga" is a backward caste. The effect of allowing the suit would be as good as declaring the plaintiff as a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. The fact of such a declaration would be as good as including this person within 7 the purview of the term "Scheduled Tribe" and the same is specifically prohibited under Article 366 (24)(25) of the Indian Constitution. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A Gurusamy reported in AIR 1997 SC 1199, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it very clear that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred in regard to the power of the Court to declare a particular person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
9. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the effect of a declaration that would be granted by a civil Court, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is implied by barred and that civil Court cannot take cognizance of such a suit. If really the plaintiff's father had belonged to Scheduled Tribe as is sought to be impressed upon this Court on the basis of the Ex.P11, a school certificate of the father of the plaintiff issued by the school in which he was studying, nothing comes in the way of the plaintiff to approach the jurisdictional District Caste Verification Committee as per 8 Rule 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules 1992. These rules have been promulgated as per sub Section 1 of Section 13 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990. In such event, concerned District Caste Verification Committee would take all steps as per the provisions of the Act and Rules framed therein and will take appropriate action as early as possible.
10. It need not be reiterated that whatever document that would be placed by the plaintiff before the Caste Verification Committee, they will be definitely taken into consideration and the Committee, being a Verification Committee will arrive at a proper decision based on a holistic approach. With these observations, it is to be held that the civil Court jurisdiction is impliedly barred and therefore, civil suit of this nature is not maintainable. Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered in the negative. 9
ORDER Hence, substantial question of law is answered in the negative holding that civil suit is not maintainable for a declaration that the plaintiff belongs to "Hindu Sheregar"
caste, as it is noting but a declaration of a particular person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of his appeal, plaintiff is at liberty to approach the District Caste Verification Committee seeking appropriate relief and in such an event, the Committee to dispose of the same in accordance with law as early as possible.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE MBS/-