Bangalore District Court
Smt.Ramya.N vs The Secretary on 7 January, 2023
1
OS No.4266/2021
KABC010167032021
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
Dated this the 7th day of January 2023
PRESENT : Sri. D.P. KUMARA SWAMY, B.Com., LL.M.,
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City
O.S.No.4266/2021
PLAINTIFFS 1. Smt.Ramya.N
D/o.Narasimhaiah
W/o.Shivakumar.G
Aged about 27 years
R/a.No.50,
Tharabanahalli Village
And Post
Benglauru-560 090.
[By Sri. Sangamesh.S.S., Advocate]
/Vs/
OS.4266/2021
2
DEFENDANTS 1. The Secretary
Government of Karntaka
Dept. of Education,
Vidhanasoudha
Bengaluru.
2. The Deputy Director,
Public Institution,
Kalasipalya Zone
Bengaluru South
Bengaluru.
3. The Secretary,
Karnataka Secondary Education,
Board, Malleshwaram
Bengaluru.
4. The Director,
Pre-University Board
Sampige Road,
18th Cross
Malleshwaram
Bengaluru.
5. The Head master/Principal,
St.Meer's High School,
Kaveripura,
Kamakshipalya,
Benglauru.
6. The Principal,
Om Prabha Pre-University College
For Woman
No.13/1 & 13/2
Magadi Main Rod
Jaimuni Rao Circle
Bengaluru-560 079.
[For D-1 to 4 by Sri A.D.G.P., Advocate ]
[For D-5 Ex-parte]
[For D-6 by Sri.N.P., Advocate]
OS.4266/2021
3
Date of Institution of the suit : 12-08-2021
Nature of the Suit : Declaration & Injunction.
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 30-08-2022
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 07-01-2023
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 01 04 26
(D.P. KUMARA SWAMY)
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City .
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration to the effect that the Caste of the plaintiff is "NAYAKA", but not "KURUBA"; for consequential relief of mandatory injunction to the defendants No.3 to 6 to substitute NAYAKA in the place of KURUBA in the school transfer certificate issued by OS.4266/2021 4 defendant No.5 School after the plaintiff completed her tenth standard ; And to grant such other and further relief in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
2. The pleaded facts of the case of the plaintiffs may be stated to the following effect:
2.1 The plaintiff studied fro 1st standard to 10th standard at defendant No.5 school. 2.2 The plaintiff studied PUC at defendant No.6 College.
2.3 After completion of 10th standard, the defendant No.5 school issued transfer certificate of the plaintiff. In the said school transfer certificate of the plaintiff, the Caste of the plaintiff is mentioned KURUBA instead of NAYAKA, which may be due to wrong or due to inadvertence on the part of the concerned staff of the defendant No.5 school.
OS.4266/2021 5 2.4 During the 1st week of January 2021, the plaintiff has gone through the said school transfer certificate of the plaintiff and noticed the said mistake. 2.5 In fact the plaintiff belong to NAYAKA Community but not KURUBA Community. The Caste of the plaintiff is entered in her other records correctly as NAYAKA. The jurisdictional Tahasildar has issued Caste Certificate of plaintiff wherein it is mentioned as NAYAKA. 2.6 After noticing the said mistake in the said school transfer certificate of the plaintiff, the plaintiff approached the defendant No.5 school and the defendant No.6 college with a request to correct the name of the Caste of the plaintiff in the school / college records of the plaintiff. The defendants No.5 and 6 advised the plaintiff to approach competent Civil Court for declaration of her Caste.
OS.4266/2021 6 2.7 Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued legal notice against the defendants No.1 to 6. The said notice is served on the defendants No.1 to 6. The defendant No.4 got issued an untenable reply notice to the plaintiff. No other case is pending for the similar relief before any court.
2.8 The above are the facts constituting the cause of action for the suit. Hence, this suit.
3. After the service of suit summons the defendant No.2 appeared and filed the written statement. The learned 1st ADGP has filed a Memo stating that the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 adopted the said written statement of defendant No.2. 3.1 The pleaded facts of the case of the defendants No.1 to 4 may be stated to the following effect. The name and particulars of a student would be entered in the school records as per the information furnished by the parents of the OS.4266/2021 7 concerned student at the time of admission of the student at the final stage and the same would be continued during further studies of the concerned student.
3.2 As per the Circular of the Education Department of the Karnataka State Government, there is no provision for changing the Caste of a student in the school records. There is no mistake on the part of the defendants in entering the name of the Caste of the plaintiff in her school / college records.
3.3 Though there is no fault on the part of the defendants, the defendants are unnecessarily dragged to the Court and made to bear heavy litigation expenses.
3.4 To rectify the alleged mistake in the school / college records of the plaintiff, the defendants have OS.4266/2021 8 to incur huge expenses apart from losing precious public time. Hence, the plaintiff may be directed to pay the said expenses to the defendants. 3.5 The plaintiff has not followed the legal procedure for change of her Caste like swearing an affidavit and giving paper publication. 3.6 The plaintiff has not satisfied any reasons for change of her Caste and also not disclosed as to in which records, her Caste has to be changed. 3.7 The suit is barred by time.
3.8 The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
3.9 In view of the Notification of the Karnataka Stage Government bearing NO.ಸ4(4) ಕಕ.ದಕ.ವ.ಜಕ.ತ.ಪ- 08/2019-2020 dated 20.04.2020, this court has no OS.4266/2021 9 jurisdiction to entertain this suit for declaration of the Caste of the plaintiff.
3.10 There is no cause of action for this suit. The suit may be dismissed.
3.11 The defendant No.6 has appeared before the court through its Advocate but not filed its written statement. After service of suit summons, the defendant No.5 has not appeared before this court. Hence, the defendant No.5 is placed ex-parte.
4. Based on the pleadings and other materials on record, this Court has framed the following Issues:
1. Does plaintiff prove that she belongs to "NAYAKA" caste instead of "KURUBA" caste?
2. Do defendants No.1 to 4 prove that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
3. Do defendants No.1 to 4 prove that, in view of the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to OS.4266/2021 10 change the caste of student in school records?
4. Do defendants No.1 to 4 prove that suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties?
5. Do defendants No.1 to 4 prove that plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit?
6. Do defendants No.1 to 4 prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit vide Notification dated 20.04.2020 issued by the Government of Karnataka?
7. Whether suit of plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed?
8. What order or Decree?
5. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 16 as marked. On behalf of the defendants No.1 to 4 the learned 1st ADGP has submitted that they have no independent evidence. The defendant No. 6 has not filed written statement. Hence, question of independent evidence of the defendant No. 6 would not arise. The defendant No. 5 is ex-parte.
OS.4266/2021 11
6. Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for the plaintiff and that of learned 1 st ADGP. The learned Advocate for the defendant No. 6 has not chosen to submit his arguments. Perused the materials.
7. My findings on the above Issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 - Not considered Issue No.2 - Not considered Issue No.3 - Not considered Issue No.4 - Not considered Issue No.5 - Not considered Issue No.6 - In the Affirmative Issue No.7 - Not considered Issue No.8 - As per final Order, for the following :
REASONS
8. Issues No.6: In the Circular of the Government of Karnataka bearing No.ಸಸಖಖಖ ಸಕಇ 93 ಎಸಸ ಡ 2017 ದನಕಸಕ 06.09.2017. Therein it is mentioned that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the Caste of any person has to be OS.4266/2021 12 rectified in his / her school records, such corrections can be made as per the decision of the District Caste Verification Committee. Accordingly, the Government of Karnataka has issued direction that such corrections should be made based on the Caste Certificate issued by the District Caste Verification Committee. In the said Circular it is further stated that if any Courts have issued decree for change of Caste of any student in his / her school records, appeals should be preferred against such decrees before the higher Courts. It is further stated in the said Circular that no Department of the Government of Karnataka shall issue Certificate regarding SC / STs without consulting the Social Welfare Department.
9. The learned 1st ADGP has produced the copy of another Circular of the Government of Karnataka bearing No.ಸ4(4) ಕಕ.ದಕ.ವ.ದಕ.ತ.ಪ. - 08/ 2010-20 ದನಕಸಕ 20.04.2020 wherein a direction is issued to all the OS.4266/2021 13 schools to receive the applications regarding correction of Castes in the school records of a particular student and forward the same to the BEO and DDPI and as per their directions, the concerned schools may make such corrections.
10. The learned 1st ADGP has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1997) 3 SCC 542 State of T.N. and Others V/s. A. Guruswamy, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had ruled that by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to take cognizance of and give a declaration of the Caste stands prohibited.
11. The learned 1st ADGP has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA.No.816/2006 (PAR) in the matter of Dharmanna V/s. The Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum and others D.D. on 14.02.2014. In the said judgment, the OS.4266/2021 14 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had ruled that a Civil Suit for a declaration that a person belongs to Hindu Sheregar Caste is not maintainable as it is nothing but a declaration that a particular person belongs to the Schedule Tribe. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had clarified that the plaintiff therein may approach the District Caste Verification Committee for the appropriate relief.
12. In the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA.No.1353/2008 (RES) in the matter of The Government of Karnataka and Others V/s. Kumari Shilpa Shrishail Baragadagi and another, wherein the question before the Hon'ble High Court was :
"Whether the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have committed a serious error in rectifying the caste of the 1st respondent in spite of there being a OS.4266/2021 15 specific prohibition under Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc) Act, 1990 and thus, the judgments are illegal and perverse?"
13. The Hon'ble High Court had answered the said question in the Affirmative.
14. In the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA No.155/2015 in the matter of Sri P.S. Venugopal @ P.S. Venu V/s. The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and others. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in almost identical fact situation, has ruled that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to correct the Caste of a student in the school records.
OS.4266/2021 16
15. In the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1574/2016 (DEC/INJ) in the matter of Miss Y.R. Vishalakshi and another V/s. The Secretary, Education Department, Government of Karnataka and Others, wherein also the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has ruled that a suit for relief liked the one on hand is not maintainable before a Civil Court and reiterated its earlier judgment in I.R 2014 KAR 4389, the Government of Karnataka and others V/s. Kumari Shilpa Shrishail Baragadagi and another.
16. In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking for declaration of her Caste as Nayaka instead of Kuruba. In view of the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above cited judgments, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Hence, Issue No.6 is held in the Affirmative.
OS.4266/2021 17
17. In view of the finding recorded supra that this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain this suit for the relief claimed by the plaintiffs, it is further necessary to note that in the judgments cited infra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka have ruled that if a Civil Court records a finding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it should not discuss the Issues on merits of the suit, but it has to dismiss the suit on the question of law of jurisdiction only. In AIR 1965 SC 338 Athmanathaswamy Devasthanam V/s. K. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ruled that a Civil Court having no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit cannot decide any question on merit. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ILR 2001 KAR 3722 Smt. Rangamma V/s. Chairman, BDA.
OS.4266/2021 18
18. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above cited judgments, Issue Nos.1 to 5 and 7 are not considered in this judgment.
19. Issue No.8 :- Hence, the following :
ORDER (1) The suit is dismissed, not on merits, but on the question of jurisdiction of this Court. (2) No order as to costs.
(3) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 7th day of January, 2023.) (D.P. KUMARA SWAMY) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City .
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiffs side :
P.W.1 -Smt.Ramya.N. dtd. 20-08-2022 OS.4266/2021 19
(b) Defendant's side :
D.W.1 - Sri. K.N. Paramesh, dtd.19-09-2019 II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiffs side :
Ex.P.1 Notarized copy of college transfer
certificate
Ex.P.2 Notarized copy of School certificate
Ex.P.3 School transfer certificate
Ex.P.4 College transfer certificate
Ex.P.5 Study Certificate
Ex.P.6 SSLC Marks Card
Ex.P.7 1st year PUC Marks Card
Ex.P.8 Caste Certificate
Ex.P.9 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card
Ex.P.10 Caste Certificate of plaintiffs father
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of
plaintiffs father
Ex.P.12 Attested copy of school transfer
certificate of plaintiffs brother Muniraju.N Ex.P.13 Caste certificate of plaintiffs brother Muniraju.N Ex.P.14 RPAD Notice Ex.P.15 Postal acknowledgment track consignment and postal acknowledgment Ex.P.16 Reply Notice
(b) Defendant's side :
NIL (D.P. KUMARA SWAMY) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City .