Karnataka High Court
Shri Rama Nayaka vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 11 September, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.42922 OF 2017 (S-DIS)
Between:
Shri Rama Nayaka
S/o late Gavisidda nayaka
Aged about 59 years
Residing at No.235, 5th cross
3rd stage 'H' block, Ramakrishna Nagar
Mysuru - 570 023
...Petitioner
(by Shri Shivakumar, Advocate)
And:
1. United India Insurance Company Limited
Represented by its Regional Manager
Regional Office at
Krishi Bhavan, 5th and 6th floor
Nrupasthunga Road, Hudson Circle
Bengaluru 560 001
2. The Tahsildar
Mysore Taluk
Mysuru - 1
3. The District SC ST Caste Verification Committee
Mysuru District
By its Chairman
Deputy Commissioner
2
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
Mysuru District
Mysuru 570 001
4. The Superintendent of Police
Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate
No.42/a, Vinayamarga, Siddarthnagar
Mysuru 570 002
5. District Social Welfare Department
No.446, Sri Saraswathi Nilaya
Kempananjamba Agrahara
Mysuru 570 024
By District Social Welfare Officer
...Respondents
(by Shri Kamalacharan S.R., Advocate for C/R1;
Shri B.C. Balaraj, HCGPs for R2 to R4)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order issued by the R1
dated 5.9.2017 (Annexure-A) dismissing the petitioner from
service and issue any writ/order direct the R1 to reinstate the
petitioner back in service; and etc.
This writ petition coming on for final hearing, this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner was appointed in the office of the first respondent on 27th December 1988. He claimed his case for consideration under Scheduled Tribe category since he belonged to Nayaka community; and for the said purpose he had produced caste certificate to the first respondent. The first respondent has 3 forwarded the caste certificate for verification to the second respondent-Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, cancelled the caste certificate on the ground that the petitioner belonged to Parivara community and does not belong to Nayaka community and he is not entitled for issuance of the said caste certificate. The verification forwarded to the Tahsildar was the subject matter before the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the CRE Cell') and the office of the CRE Cell summoned the petitioner for verification. The petitioner submitted all the testimonials for consideration. Despite the production of testimonials by the petitioner, the Tahsildar cancelled the caste certificate. The cancellation was challenged before Deputy Commissioner, who is the appellate authority. The appellate authority, after examining the case of the petitioner, has set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar who cancelled the caste certificate. On the basis of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the Tahsildar has now issued fresh caste certificate on 17th May 2018. Meanwhile, on the basis of the cancellation of the caste certificate by the Tahsildar, the first respondent has dismissed the petitioner from service on the 4 ground that he has made a false claim as if he belong to Scheduled Tribe.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Parivara caste which is synonymous of Nayaka and he has not suppressed his caste for the purpose of wrongful gain and hence the order of dismissal from service passed by the first respondent is to be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner belongs to Parivara community which was included in the Scheduled Tribe list only on 15th May, 2018 which goes to show that as on the date of his appointment, the petitioner was not Scheduled Tribe, rightly, the Tahsildar cancelled the caste certificate and on the basis of the cancellation of the caste certificate, the first respondent dismissed the petitioner from service and hence there is no error in the said action of the respondent.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Government Advocate. The Tahsildar, is the competent authority under the Government of India Act, 1950 for issuance 5 of caste certificate. In the present case, the Tahsildar has himself misguided and is not aware of the time-to-time Notifications issued by the Government of India and the Government of Karnataka. It is expected of that the Tahsildar, who is the competent authority to issue the caste certificate must be aware about the up-to-date instructions and Government Orders. Initially, there was a dispute with regard to the synonymous terms of Scheduled Tribe between Nayaka, Valmiki, Parivara, Nayakadu, etc. This confusion resulted in cancellation and non-issuance of caste certificate. Ultimately, on the recommendation made by the Government of Karnataka, the Government of India issued a Gazette Notification in the year 1991 declaring that Naikda, Nayaka, Cholivala Nayaka, Kapadia nayaka, Mota nayaka, Nana nayaka, Naik, Nayak, Beda, Bedar and Valmiki, etc. are synonyms to Nayaka. Again there was an area which was not plugged in, viz. in respect of the community which were also called as 'Parivara' and 'Talwar'. Whether it is Pariwara or Talwar, though they are also Nayaka or Nayakda, but are differently called out as Parivara or Talawar, but altogether they belong to a common caste 'Nayaka' which are 6 classified as Scheduled Tribe by issuing Notification by the Government of India. Under these circumstances, the cancellation of caste certificate by the Tahsildar is contrary to Government of India Notification including all the synonymous terms under the Scheduled Tribe List. Since the Tahsildar has not looked into the same, the same has been rectified by the Appellate Authority, i.e. Income and Caste Verification Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner and consequently, the Caste certificate of the petitioner has been restored by issuing fresh caste certificate on 17th May, 2018. That does not mean that he becomes Scheduled Tribe with effect from that date. It is only rectification of the cancellation order wrongly made by the Tahsildar. Under the circumstance, the petitioner has a right to claim his case for reinstatement into service. At this juncture, it is submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner is attaining age of superannuation this September. Under these circumstances, I hold that the dismissal order passed by the first respondent is illegal and is contrary to law and Government of India Notifications. It is held that the petitioner belong to Nayaka 7 coming under Schedule Tribe List and was duly appointed on the basis of the caste certificate issued to that effect. The first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith in order to enable him to get the pensionary benefits, etc. Petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn